Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 15: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:59, 15 March 2006 editIronGiant (talk | contribs)242 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 22:04, 15 March 2006 edit undoAlpha269 (talk | contribs)179 edits added NYTNext edit →
Line 128: Line 128:
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper (second nomination)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper (second nomination)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clayton "The Clan Man" Varnon}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clayton "The Clan Man" Varnon}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The New York Times}}

Revision as of 22:04, 15 March 2006

< March 14 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

March 15

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. I'm closing this one early because the redirects will be useful and the prose has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor SSBM characters

I am nominating the following articles for deletion (ignore the top one, I forgot it was a redirect to the main SSBM article):

All are extraordinarily short articles that have only appeared in one game. Giga Bowser hurts my eyes; it's as if someone copied it from a GameFAQs FAQ. I have merged all relevent information into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters but would still like to see the articles deleted and recreated as redirects, if recreated at all. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. -Splash 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Self fashioning

Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.--Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with the other article. They both need a major rewrite. This was apparently an actual practice, but I know little more about it after reading the article. Carlo 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Iq content

Non-notable company. Prod removed seemingly due to misunderstanding of process. Hynca-Hooley 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Above Board

NN/Vanity Advertisement/press release for some schoolkids running a business. --Aim Here 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delizzle. DS 05:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Foglerhymez

Appears to be an urban-music related hoax. No Google references could be found at all. OTOH, May be too "undaground" to verify! Hynca-Hooley 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

DOS.MASTER

A computer utility. Article has been speedied and reposted a couple of times, looks like consensus might be needed. Hynca-Hooley 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN software. deletionist 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep GHits not relevant to something that was obsolete before the web was invented (when the card catalog was a file system and the search engine was your fingers). Based on the article, notable as part of computer history. Needs more encyclopedic style, maybe some comments and refs from old Apple magazines. Thatcher131 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Clarification If it can be expanded a bit more, keep as a separate article linked to the relevant Apple II articles. However, I would also support merging into Apple DOS. Thatcher131 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere nowhere land

DELETE This work is not notable or interesting in anyway, is not the work of any prolific author(s) and is not available generally

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bayraktar Mini UAV

Vanity / advert. Originally prodded, but removed by another user because the owner of the company mentioned is of some notability. That may be true, but this page is pure advertisement, and after visiting the company website, I'm not convinced that this article should be kept. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the industry could comment. Tijuana Brass 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear commentators, I have looked to the other uav examples and changed the article content. I am trying to make the necessary changes according to the comments. --Haluk 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at this uav as well in which there is not any single reference. I did put references inside. --Haluk 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
To clarify a point here, you do not 'own' the article, you have released the text you contributed under the Gnu Free Documentation License, which gives everyone the expressed right to take, modify, use, distribute and even sell the text, so long as they also give those same rights to whoever ends up with it. -AKMask 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, AKMask, wrong expression, i erased that part.--Haluk 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No worries at all :) Although it is considered good form not to delete things from these kinds of pages and strike them out instead. I know, I know, steep learning curve, but your adjusting remarkably well :) -AKMask 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Aladin's existence is verified by this Herald Tribune article. Several news outlets confirm that the German army bought 115 of them last year. This is what Misplaced Pages:Verifiability means. --Perfecto 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Southland (band)

Band at the boundaries of WP:MUSIC notability. Article is a little promotional of the band also. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Alert: A Path Beyond

This is not a large article and can easily be merged into the Battlefield 2 and Command and Conquer: Red Alert articles without having its own page.--Zxcvbnm 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Sexton

Verbose, aggrandising article about a perhaps notable director of an entertainment company. Requires cleanup at the very least. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, mostly gut feeling. I've seen much less notable people in wikipedia articles. At least he's a VP in the entertainment industry. -Oscar Arias 09:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oscar, gut feeling is not a criterion, thank God, in WP:N. If even you see a less notable person, do us all a favor, propose him for deletion. Let's get WP up to standard of citability in scholarly works and judicial opinions. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Intel processor confusion

This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion. List of Intel microprocessors is quite adequate. Ezeu 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think this article falls under the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Aplomado - UTC 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's poorly named and the individual processors have their own lists. (But, yes, Intel processor names are too confusing!) -- Mithent 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (to the appropriate pages). I don't see lists for individual Intel microprocessor families (List of Intel microprocessors is higher-level than this page, and doesn't have all the detailed information that this page has), but, by analogy to List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors, etc.; if the information, the information on this page should go into pages listing Pentium 4 or Netburst microprocessors, Pentium M microprocessors, Intel Core microprocessors, etc.. The "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" pages appear to use marketing names for "XXX", so, by analogy, I'd use marketing terms, so Xeons would be separate from Pentium 4's, although that then raises the question of whether a Pentium 4 is the same as a Pentium D (the D being a two-cores-on-a-package 4), whether a Yonah Intel Core is the same as a Pentium M, etc.. I wouldn't hold up the nuking of Intel processor confusion for a decision on that, though. "Intel processor confusion" is a bit of a bizarre and "un-encyclopedic" name, even if the information is useful. Guy Harris 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If the information is useful, and its the name that is un-encyclopedic, perhaps a rename and cleanup will do. I am starting to doubt this AfD nomination. --Ezeu 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's more than just the name; I assume the "confusion" is that there's a metric crapload of processors with "Pentium" in the name that have different characteristics and, sometimes, different microarchitectures (NetBurst in Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium EE, and some Xeon processors; Pentium M in some other processors, including the Yonah Intel Core microprocessors). If the goal is to clear up confusion about processors with "Pentium" in the name, it could list any such processors - perhaps we could start by renaming the page "List of Intel Pentium processors", and allow classic Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, etc. to be added to it by those sufficiently anal-retentive to care. :-) It wouldn't list the current Intel Core processors, though, as they're not Pentiums, nor would it list Celeron or Xeon processors - they'd have their own "list of" pages.
We might want to add a column for the microarchitecture, given that Intel's used the same marketing name for processors with different microarchitectures (more so than AMD, who've used Athlon and Duron only for K7 processors, and have used Athlon 64, Opteron, and Turion only for K8 processors, although they've apparently used Sempron for both K7's and K8's). Guy Harris 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if people think this page should simply be deleted (as opposed to renamed), would they say the same for the various "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" page? (I wouldn't argue if they said "yes", but if they said "no", I'd ask why a list of Pentiums is different from a list of Athlons.) Guy Harris 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The Xeon page has a list of Xeon processors; by analogy to that, I'd merge the stuff about Pentium 4/D/EE from Intel processor confusion with the table on the Pentium 4 page, and move the stuff about Pentium M to a table on the Intel Core page (because it's only about Yonah). If the merging doesn't result in any change to the pages in question (because all the information from Intel processor confusion is already there), that amounts to Delete. Guy Harris 09:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Louis Bernacchi

Delete no established notablity. Kiwidude 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Texan Tavern

Delete no established notablity. possible advertising. vanity. Kiwidude 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Shondes

Band; does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, perhaps cultural importance can be argued; but only 66 Google hits suggest probably not. Hynca-Hooley 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kids Eat Free

Prod removed. This is supposed to warrant its own encyclopedia article??? Delete! Hynca-Hooley 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Montco 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is just not needed. Nigelthefish 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexis Stodghill

Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results. Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.

Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.

Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?

Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.

The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.

I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.

Vanity that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)

    • For the record, if you wrote that Ahston Kutcher was the worst actor in the world, it would turn up on a google search.... Oh, and Dakota Fanning is not exactly an extra.... JackO'Lantern 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Regarding your opinion: "If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little." Misplaced Pages has a clearly stated policy (WP:V) that is exactly the opposite. If you cannot prove (or PROOVE) notability, there's no reason to assume it's true. All sorts of wannabe musicians, models, actors want articles here to promote themselves. An actor not listed in IMDB is suspect to say the least. Fan1967 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JackO'Lantern , this may come as a surprise, but Dakata Fanning was in 6 independant movies before she "hit it big" AND 2 commercials ! (Do you think they just pulled her out of daycare?)

I suggest you go see the website in question, you'll see a girl in a picture with THE casting director for Palmetto Pointe, PRACTICING LINES.

The FACT is, she HAS been on TV, she HAS been in independant movies, she WILL be in more commercials.

The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justadding (talk • contribs)

  • I offer no opinion except that the person I've nominated for deletion has no IMDB entry and next to no Google results. It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject). Of course, at some point in time, Dakota Fanning would not have been notable enough to list. But that changed circa 2000. JackO'Lantern 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


"It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject)."

That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)

Delete per funky monkey -- pm_shef 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Julie Scardina

Another one of these CV/resumé-tinged possible vanity biographies of a living person. Here there is assertion of notability (appearances on Tonight Show). {{nn-bio}} and {{prod}} tags both removed. Personally vote weak keep, but something of a revamping of the article is needed if that is the outcome of the debate. Hynca-Hooley 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I removed the prod, but I agree that the article could use some NPOV work and she does scrape notability. IMDB lists eight appearances on the Tonight Show and three on Rosie O'Donnell, plus one more appearance elsewhere. (And that may not be a complete list, of course.) Google has 786 hits with her name in quotes. JRP 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. Appears over and over on California-based TV talk shows, particularly Tonight/Leno as ringmaster for animal acts. Monicasdude 03:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone on Tonight Show is notable, so if I appear on a guest show, then am I notable?? --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A single appearance on a guest show, perhaps not, but this person has many appearances and on different shows, which seems to me indicates notability, so keep.Bondegezou 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If everyone that appears on guest shows, then we will have more articles. They must assert some notability. --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zukak

Suspected hoax. "Zukak" gives 800 google hits, mainly to Arab related material. "Noobquest" of "Noob Quest" of "Noob quest" all give less than 3000, which don't appear related.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Project Duvessa

nn company. appears to be something which hasn't even started yet.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (CSD A7). kingboyk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Obidike

I put this up for speedy, but have copped some flak from the author, and some other editor, who has only about 10 edits, but has been around for one month. "Obidike" has 453 google hits, mostly to people in America, while "Obidike" has only 10. The article also says dubious stuff like the last sentence, which smells of unverifiability.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi BL Nguyen, I'd just like to say that it's local folk lore. I don't know what a person living in australia would know about local folk lore. The story is most often spread by word of mouth, that's how I heard it and apparently someone else has too. The lots of edits are because I'm not a very good typer and i have a tendancy to post and reedit. I know it's a bad habit. Also i missed a couple of things off and added later. I'm a long time reader here, but Until recently I've only read, not contributed. Please don't judge me because of that. I ask you is it the case that you only dislike the article because of the slight mention of "yellow fever" since you are quite obviously asian from your vietnamese name. I'm not being racist here, its not my fault the fabled society was called that. As with all folk lore and legend, it is indeed mostly unverifyable, as are many things in life. I understand that technically it should be verifyable to be on wikipedia, but how is any mythology to be posted if there is no gray area. KX36 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I can assure you that my ethnicity has nothing to do with my nomination. I did not even notice anything from "yellow fever", and I can assure you that I am not in any way offended by the posting of the article. I check the Newpages for articles which are not encyclopedic as per WP:AFD, and in this case, WP:BIO. I do this regularly, and use AfD a lot, please see User:Blnguyen/AfD, which is a log of my activity on AfD. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. A story about some local character who read a lot of comic books and is really good with a playstation controller? Oh, please. If it's "one of the least well known folk legends of recent history" I think it can stay that way. Fan1967 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Phantasm's End

A film that was never made - didn't even make it through pre-production. Prod tag removed by User:Mr. Popadopalis25. - Cnwb 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comics@MaiNada.Net

Advertisement. Does not look notable to me. Delete DMG413 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a new web2.0 project involving webcomics. Could be the start of new ways publishing comics online. With the coming of new portable devices, particulary with pen, touch screen and wireless connection. This could be a great solutions for amateurs with devices unable to load painter, paint shop pro or other paintng applications. As each and every on of those devices will have a browser, they will be able to draw a comic strip directly online whenever the want. Seems very relevant to me as in a medium term timeline.keep it Tiago.Cardoso 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not a start-up. It was merly a project to test some technologies. Open Laszlo intereacting with Ruby On Rails. And instead of doing something meanless. I decided to create something nice, that could give some new contribute. It was done with good intentions, not to make money. And don't think that every web2.0 has to be from a startup. People do enjoy doing things their are paissoned about. keep it Tiago.Cardoso 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Call it a start-up or new project, doesn't matter. Neither does your passion or your intentions. It is not a judgement on the value of your project. The point is (a) you're new (b) basically nobody's ever heard of you. Misplaced Pages is not to promote unknowns, it is to document people or things that have already established notability. Fan1967 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think you should go and check List of webcomics, every single webcomics there as a dedicated article and I can assure you that there are some webcomics there that aren't in the scope of "things that have already established notability.". Think of this as another webcomics on that list. But with an innovation added. Tiago.Cardoso 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The road to Hell is paved with...never mind. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G. Crawford (talk • contribs)

hmmm, check Alexa ranking to Arbit_Choudhury and check Alexa ranking to Comics@MaiNada.Net. It far to distante. And i'm about 800% better now then 1 month ago. It's growing. So, don't tell me Arbit_Choudhury has notability. Tiago.Cardoso

Response Feel free to nominate Arbit_Choudhury for deletion. Still won't make your site notable. Fan1967 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just one last comment, I do think you are not being very open to this. I do think this project, this webcomics deserves a article here in WP. If you ask, i'll make an honest effourd to improve it with your help, but saying that you want to delete it because I'm not knowen it a bit far fetched!.. It gives a bad sense of anti-democracy to the project and the user-coorperation. What do you think, want to help me or just want to take privelige of being more senior users ? Tiago.Cardoso

  • PS- Zaron, you are right and some of your comments were the most accurate. I real do thing that the article isn't good as it is. I see some problems with it. My intention wasn't to make an AD, but I come like one.. Probably because I copy-paste some of the info in the site.. and that info is supposed to be not that impartial ;) I just didn't like the initial comments. Too much of pretentious and non-constructive comments. But that's just my opinion. I offered myself to re-write the article with help, like that link you shown. I'll take care of that later. This isn't that much of an important thing for now. Thanks anyway and sorry some more hard comments. :) Tiago.Cardoso


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

INpax

INPAX and "rapper" turn up exactly this at Google. Clearly non-notable, vanity, etc. you name it, this article does it.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Borderlands rpg

A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.--PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd get a much better reception if the page wasn't blatant advertising, I expect, and made notability clearer (eg, noting the number of users, noting any media attention, more history, etc). --Fuzzie (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a Star Trek -related article. No, wait, I meant to say delete, advertisement for an RPG group. JIP | Talk 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Delta MLA 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well it's going back up if you delete it. I'll change the content to be more wiki-friendly, but there is no reason at all why we shouldn't have a place here. If you look at categories like: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction, they are ALL personal games. If there is something wrong with posting these kind of sites up then you may as well delete those entire categories, because that's exactly what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truemper (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn Percy Snoodle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, blatant advertising/spam. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been warned now that I had better not re-add my article, because admin can delete it on sight... but I will be re-adding it........ I'll fix up the content so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement, and instead gives more of a historical look at Trek based Role playing on the Internet, but I KNOW that Borderlands has a place here. If you look at the debate around Bravo-Fleet being on the Wiki, then that's all you need to hear to know that Borderlands belongs also. Bravo-Fleet is unique because of it's size, but Borderlands is more notable because of age. We started in 1993 - a full 5 years before Bravo Fleet, and well before any other documented Trek RPG out there. We have a history that is more relevant to gaming than Bravo Fleet, and if I get deleted after highlighting that history then I'm going to demand that every other RPG documented on Misplaced Pages be removed as well. I admit that the current article content isn't anything special, it was a cut and paste job from our homepage just to have something up, but we do have relevance, and I will be putting Borderlands back up again when I compile that information, despite threats......... Would it kill you to offer suggestions to FIX content? - Rather than just acting like freaking Wiki-Nazis. —This unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. The problem isn't that the article is bad. The problem is that the fan club isn't notable enough as yet to have an article on Misplaced Pages. --Rory096 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • So tell me, what makes the fan club notable?... Are you telling me that being the longest standing game on the Internet isn't notable enough?........ What is it about Bravo Fleet that makes it more notable, other than size? We intentionally chose a different niche than Bravo Fleet, we want quality, not quantity, so that disqualifies us? How about games like UCIP that have NO notability, but didn't get hammered by this crap?... Like I said before, the categories: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction are all full of less notable clubs than Borderlands..... That's all those categories have at all! I know I'm not supposed to be offended by the delete request, but how can I *not* be when so much clearly non-notable crap is all over the place, and a club that built itself off of our history in gaming gets put up for deletion, but isn't deleted because of popular support. We are the ancestry of these categories, we deserve a place here, but somehow we're the ones that get singled out for deletion and threatened not to try posting up better 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, even discounting all unsigned comments (of which there were plenty), I still count 7 people wanting to keep, merge or redirect, and 10 people wanting to delete. That's still not a consensus to delete. A consensus about what to do with this information (keep as is, merge somewhere, redirect) can be reached on the article's talk page, as consensus for that specific decision is not evident from this AfD. W.marsh 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

27 Club

This article was already deleted once at Articles_for_deletion/27_Club. It is (still) only a neologism with no widespread outside use. --CrypticBacon 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP very intriguing and good idea, funny list, well done - actually it is rather a candidate for "featured articles". Kurt.
  • KEEP it - as a fan of music I've always been strangely intrigued by the fact that so many of my favorite musicians died at 27. The fact that many other groups of people share this intrigue is reason enough to keep it. Obviously, not everyone will care, or find this article interesting, but that is not a reason to delete it.
  • Keep as it is a popular concept. page bottom lists it as a "curse" and for the MTV generations it has just as much historical significance as Tecumseh's Curse, Kennedy Curse, Rebel Without a Cause Curse and the Superman Curse. If 27 Club is deleted, then the aforementioned should be deleted as well.
  • KEEP -- 27 Club is a well-known phenomenon in American pop culture. The fact that the 'Big 4' 27 club members weren't just famous ... they were huuuuge; at the peak of their success. And now each is a rock icon. Heck, Misplaced Pages has an article about the myth of eating Pop Rocks while drinking soda pop as well as articles on Coprophilia (sexual arousal through feces) and Anal bleaching. KEEP THE 27 CLUB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Delete as it's a pointless list of musicians who died at age 27. Totally unnecessary. Aplomado - UTC 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I think a list of musicians who died young (whatever that is) would be quite interesting. We have List of deaths through alcohol, why not List of musicians who died young? It seems pointless to focus on a single age (that and the title smell slightly of OR) but a general list might be useful. Thatcher131 03:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, to be fair, shortly after Cobain killed himself his mother was quoted as saying "I told him not to join that stupid club", referring to (we presume) other notable musicians who died at 27, so the term does have somewhat of a historical basis, though weak. Through a Google search on "27 club"; I was able to find the term used in one reputable source, and then only as the title to the story. --CrypticBacon 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a recreated article that has already been deleted once. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. the BBC article where they mentioned "27 club" was just a catchy title rather than saying that such a club existed. not many relevant google hits . Plus its already mentioned at 27 (number) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's actually a popular concept. Not many popular musicians die under 30, and the fact that most of their deaths happened at the same age is notable. Forever 27 is another known name for this. Manmonk 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neologism. --Terence Ong 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 50,700 hits for "27 club" indicates some interest and the BBC article is a verifiable source. There is also an Asahi article . Capitalistroadster 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, merging if necessary to 27 (number). It's mentioned there already and doesn't need another article. Night Gyr 10:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. Alba 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the entire article into a seperate section of 27 (number) and redirect. Herostratus 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted above, it's a popular concept. I had heard it discussed several times before stumbling upon the wikipedia page. —thames 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a rather fascinating phenomenon, in my opinion, I've always been aware of the strange fact that these artists all died at 27 before wikipedia came along. It's nice to have an entry for it for those who aren't already aware.
  • Keep or Merge It's not pointless. I believe one of Wiki's goals is to become the most comprehensive encyclopedia around. Thus, we should all want it to contain as much information as possible, no matter how insignificant it might be to some. A small amount of google hits shouldn't be reason for deletion. Misplaced Pages would be that much more popular having something that isn't found on a major search engine. Most importantly, it does have a following within the music community, and anyone looking for it won't go to 27 (number) as their first thought. So, per Herostratus' comment, at the very least give it it's own section on 27 (number) with a redirect. --Wilhelm Screamer 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. incog 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terrance, Brian and nom. Cursive 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A merge into 27 (number), seems a bit odd as this article isn't really about the number 27. it is after all not math but music and most music fans wouldn't look at 27. The information in the article is certainly interesting trivia, the above mentioned articles do indicate a certain degree of use. Perhaps the term itself is somewhat obscure, so I propose recreating this article at Musicians who died at age 27 with redirects from 27 Club, Forever 27, etc. Then mention those as names for the "phenomenon" in the new article. So, I guess that constitutes a keep and rename vote. Cool3 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - cannot find notable examples of usage in this manner. -- infinity0 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a concept of the fact that 3 (Kurt Cobain not included) of the most popular musical icons died in a timeframe so close together and at the same age. If you are going to delete this becuase it's "nonsense", go ahead and delete the articles for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, and UFOs.
  • Delete Pointless list. Nigelthefish 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ... The BBC, Salon.com and Yahoo Music have all used this terminology, in addition to Kurt Cobains own mother (and by some accounts, Cobain himself).

KEEP Just the fact that there is so much discussion about this topic warrants it as valid. I am endlessly baffled, fascinated and shocked that all of these important icons died at age 27. It seems more than a coincidence sometimes and I am working on a reasearch project to investigate this more. PLEASE KEEP THIS ENTRY!

This vote is User:Hilarie5000's only edit. --CrypticBacon 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's 4 more votes at the very top of the page by possible sockpuppets with few, if any, edits at all. User:206.208.110.32 has made 2 votes. It should be known that AfD, and Misplaced Pages, is not a democracy and majority rule is not the deciding factor. Manmonk 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on Comment -- Misplaced Pages may not be a "majority rule" or "democracy." But Misplaced Pages is most definitely a microcosm of pure socialism much like an Amish community (not to be confused with Communism, Fascism or totalitarianism). People contribute their thoughts and ideas for public consumption, but just because someone may not care for the ideas of another that does not warrant the article as meaningless. For example, right now you probably have about 55% of the people that 'don't care for' George W. Bush, but does that mean his article on Misplaced Pages should be deleted? Should articles about God and Jesus be deleted because someone is an atheist, or Muslim, or Hindu? Misplaced Pages is a marketplace of ideas, but this article deletion policy is just a mere step away from censorship and book burning. Every article with a purpose -- no matter how ridiculous (Ape Escape 3 anyone?) -- deserves to be part of that free market exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
File:Forever-27-Poster.jpg
  • I've already voted, but I feel that if this poster is available at Art.com and is being mass produced, that indicates sufficient interest in the topic. 206.208.110.32


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian Abrahams

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was that the article was deleted after five days on WP:PROD with tag still on page and no followup to talk page protest. —This unsigned comment is by The Epopt (talk • contribs) .

Scot Young Research

PRODded on March 10, as failing WP:CORP. The article's creator did not remove the tag, but did protest on the discussion page. Referring to AfD. Abstain. Joyous | Talk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Traveling Ham Agency

Previously deleted, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry; vanity by User:Travelinghamagency. -- TomPreuss 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pick up lines

Cannot be considered an encyclopedic entry. Looks more like a wikiquote page than an wikipedia page. Sharpdust 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy-ly delete. - brenneman 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Helga Wanglie

nn, borderline original reseaurch Delete --Jaranda 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

K.A. Maroufi-Collé

Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet the criteria of Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). No sources are cited, and just 34 Google hits for "Maroufi-Collé". Donald Albury 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment In checking his user page, I find he had also put up an autobigraphy of himself, mostly nonsense, which was userfied. Dad, originally User:Colle1, had also created an autobigraphy, which was userfied. When Arthur recreated that biography, Dad, now User:Profcolle helped out. Modest family. Fan1967 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Erotic Engineering

Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Erotic Engineering

neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Marlon Abalos

Delete.Seems to be about a non-notable musician. Also clearly a vanity page (check the history). ConDem 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete

WikiSonnet

No evidence of notability. "WikiSonnet" gets 0 Google hits. dbtfz 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ASP Examples

Basically the same reasons given for Active Server Pages/Hints: This page has no point being in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a usage guide. Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual. The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Nova SS 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aderack

Non notable bio of a writer for http://www.insertcredit.com/ Manmonk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Deep Stealth

either a neologism or dicdef; googling "deep stealth" vaginoplasty gets only 79 hits the second of which seems to contradict the article; "deep stealth" is used to refer to keeping many secrets other than transgender status ➥the Epopt 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Transsexuality article contains an entire section labeled "Stealth" which includes a discussion of "deep stealth." It looks like that section is better written and clearer in meaning than this article. Maybe a redirect? Fan1967 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Beatle Barkers

This is another article identified as part of the cleanup drive at WP:Beatles. It's about a parody album performed by singing dogs. Sounds fun, but there's no assertion of and no apparent notability and - here's the killer for me - zero links from mainspace. kingboyk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague from the UK but I think this nom is at best a few days early. We slapped some tags on this one in hopes someone would turn up... also a google search turns up a fair number of references to this (most not very complimentary to be sure) from diverse places. I think it needs to be merged to some parody album collection point, with a redirect left, rather than deleted outright. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep if the album exists in real life, i think it should stay; just because it is bad or not linked is no reason to delete it. Perle 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's 8th edit to Misplaced Pages, has 0 edits to mainspace. --kingboyk 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The mere existance of an album or CD (since it is relatively easy to do low copy count production runs for not a lot of money, I could produce an album of my musings on the stylistic failings of dog music for 400 USD or so I think...) is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. There has to be some evidence of sales through established outlets, or evidence of impact on others, or evidence via reviews, etc... In this case I think some of that evidence does exist (but is enough to make it barely notable, at best) which is why I suggested a merge. Colin's point that there is no article to merge TO is valid... so maybe this should be moved and other dog music articles then merged with this one? ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: isn't the point of this item more that it is Beatles-related rather than dog-music related? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE per User:Lar - Oarias 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real album, prominent novelty record, pretty strong web presence for a bunch of dogs, and you can still buy their music (on compilations) at Barnes and Noble and Amazon and such. I'd go for a merge to an article about recorded animal performances, but I couldn't find one after a bit of looking, and it's not really helpful to suggest a merge without a destination in mind. It may not strictly meet WP:MUSIC, but I think this is one of those letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law things. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a genuine item with a real connection to The Beatles' music, and therefore of potential interest to anyone researching The Beatles. Comment: This is what I don't understand about deletionists - they frequently advocate removal of material which is potentially of genuine interest to researchers on a topic, which is based on real and genuine sources, but may be a little obscure. Is there some merit in keeping Misplaced Pages to the bare minimum? If so, why are these huge bloated articles tolerated which deal with all sorts of subjects of fan-dom of little interest to anyone but the most obsessive fans of various print and electronic media? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's so interesting, why is nobody linking to it?! 0 links. This has nothing to do with being a "deletionist" or not, it was an article that was found in Category:The Beatles as part of our cleanup drive and which, with zero links and no context, didn't seem to belong there. I felt it didn't belong at all, but that seems to be a minority opinion at the moment, which is cool. Removing excessive fandom is one thing we are trying to do, but if you look at our project you'll see it's quite a task. --kingboyk 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Lots of interesting things here are orphaned, largely because we're a work in progress. -Colin Kimbrell 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There is SO much fandom stuff in Misplaced Pages, especially in things like Japanese manga and suchlike. No-one seems to do much about it, but if complaints about some much more encyclopedic articles are upheld, I guess I support moves to reduce clear fandom as being not NPOV... though I have to be careful - I am an inclusionist by inclination, heh heh! --SilverWings 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Collé

Husband of K.A. Maroufi-Collé, appears to be non-notable. Son has been adding biographies of the family. Fan1967 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep With all due respect, Terence Ong, the fact as to whether or not "spouse" was marked was irrelevent. There are multiple papers published by R Colle over the internet, all having sources. Go look, eh? Laura Bush? Ahhh, yes, notable for murder, no?--Necrypsys
  • Delete, spouses are non-notable unless they are Laura Bush or Hilary Rodham Clinton. --Terence Ong 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Characterization as "spouse" was facetious action by nominator, choosing to list the one more likely to be considered non-notable first. We need to give scientists a fair shake with respect to Pokemon fictional characters, Bangladeshi cricketers, and Japanese actresses. It doesn't matter who listed, numerous publications in professional journals evident from Google search even without bio removed as copyvio, plus editor of scientific journal, NIST Journal of Research. Gene Nygaard 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the professor test. Most of his papers have citation counts in the single digits to mid-teens, which is very respectable but not evidence that he is more highly regarded than the average professor in his field; however a couple of his articles have very high citation counts (unless there is more than one R Colle in the field of physics). Also journal editor. There should be enough to allow somone to do a better job of explaining importance. Thatcher131 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. Can you post the search url or explain more (on the article's talk page I guess). Thatcher131 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The person who writes an article should write it in such a way that makes it clear why the subject should be in an article. Although sometimes people commenting on AfD do independent research to try and help problem articles, this is not a responsibility, it is a gift of our time and energy to the author and the project. Thatcher131 05:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical paradox

This page does not describe a notable class of statements; it also has no sources that previous described such statements and is therefore original research. The page also fails to describe a paradox. By saying this, I do not mean that one of the apparently true possibilities is obviously false. In fact, there is only one possibility: The speaker hates himself. Superm401 - Talk 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of ...For Dummies books

This list is better maintained by IDG Press. John Wiley & Sons, the current publisher. FreplySpang (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Useful in wat way exactly? This is a partial list of unknown currency and unproven accuracy, a mirror of a list fomr the publisher's website, it contains no links and no additional information. Linking to the identical list on the publisher's website gives links to synopses. We do not have articles on more than a handful of these books, so that won't happen here. It's functionally indistinguishable form the Yellow Pages, which WP:ISNOT. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like encyclopedic info to me, so we should have it even if it is a duplicate of the publisher's list. --Allen 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. We're not Amazon.com. --kingboyk 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There has to be some lower limit of notability. · rodii · 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of course! Misplaced Pages is not a mirror of the publisher's catalogue, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, WP:NPOVUW - few if any other publishers or series have an entire cataloigue mirrored on Misplaced Pages, nor should they. There are new titles coming out all the time, and no more than a tiny fraction of those listed have articles. Anybody who wants the list of Dummies books can get it trivially easily from dummies.com or Wiley's website, authoritative and up-to-date sources, with no more effort and with considerably more useful results since they will be able to click through and read a synopsis. Honestly, there is no encyclopaedic content here at all! Just zis Guy you know? 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename List of Dummies' and Idiot's books or something similar and add titles by competing publishers, e.g. The Complete Idiot's Guide to.... The series is noteworthy and the lists are encyclopedic. They provide valuable references for people who want information. Fg2 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, we could have the "complete idiot's guide to Misplaced Pages" - it could start with "copy and paste the content of your favourite web page into an article on Misplaced Pages!" Oh, wait , that must already exist, judging by the existence this article ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd just come from there and it was late! Dlyons493 Talk 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a mirror of John Wiley & Sons website. A category is more than sufficient for this. Stifle 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or trim and merge, as it is now because Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this could be made a more encyclopedic list or a category, that would be much better. --Christopherlin 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP Or else delete every single article on wikipedia and close the site down. EVERYTHING we have on wikipedia is SOMEWHERE on the internet (or else why would we bother about how many google hits something has), so to say this is just a copy of xyz is ridiculous. This is a list of well known and verifiable books which are in and of themselves useful. Jcuk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! I have a list of all the sizes of spanners, I'll create that article right away - every spanner is, after all, useful! Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We'll need two spanner lists, actually, one for English and one for metric, plus redirects from the "list of wrenches" articles. Please get on this. · rodii · 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Spammers come in more than one size? What sizes do they span? ouch! Stop kicking me. Oh, you said spanners! Never mind. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Two lists? You jest! Metric, imperial a/f (SAE?), British Standard Whitworth, British Standard Pipe, British Standard Fine, BA, then there's six-point, twelve-point, open ended, ring, combi, surface drive. And that's just the cantilever toolbox, I have four more toolboxes... :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Fake Keep. Excellent! All well known and verifiable tools which are in and of themselves useful! · rodii · 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - ] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the ...for Dummies article. We should put a note near the top saying that it's not an exhaustive or necessarily up-to-date list, then we don't have to worry about maintaining it as much. 134.173.95.35 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it sure is useful. There's a complete list on the publishers' website, which is up to date - and if you click the titles you get a synopsis. Our mirror is distinctly inferior in these respects. No doubt that's why they wrote WP:NOT a directory. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
As usual JzG makes some good points. However, I don't think we should delete articles because someone else out on the internet has produced a better version. If that's the case many, many articles here would have to go. The advantage is that we can be an impartial source that has no pecuniary interest in the material covered. Getting back to the Dummy series, I know that people really admire and love these books, kind of like Harry Potter. As such, I see little difference between this list and any of our many book lists that people can begin to peruse at List of lists of books. -- JJay 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But it isn't just "someone out on the Internet" with a better version - more like, the publisher's list is a source, and our list is completely derivative of their list. I understand that we can be impartial in the article that describes the series, and that the publisher can't. But how can we be any more impartial than the publisher in producing a bare list of titles? FreplySpang (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be pretty obvious how we can be more impartial since we can draw from any source we want to compile the list. Also why do you think this list is condemned to remain "a bare list"? Why does Harry Potter have a list of Harry potter books? Couldn't the publisher do that better? Or for that matter, why don't we just leave it for a fan site? We can not allow our POVs to say one series of books merits a list and another one doesn't. -- JJay 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
  • Are you arguing that the publisher's listing of its own products is biased? I'd say that it's verifiable.
  • Harry Potter is a completely different case, because each individual book is notable—each has topped best-seller lists, garnered critical praise in mass-media outlets, etc. The list of Harry Potter books (note: which is not on List of Harry Potter books), links to articles on notable subjects. With very rare exceptions, the only claim to notability most ...For Dummies books have is being a ...For Dummies book.
  • Following, this is condemned to remain a bare list, for all intents, because the vast majority of its subjects of the list aren't notable enough for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. It will be more useful to put any articles which may be created in a Category:...For Dummies books, rather than bury wikilinks between hundreds of list entries.
I am unconvinced that this article will ever contain useful content in addition to the basic list of titles. And if it's just a list of titles, it serves Misplaced Pages better to link to the publishers site instead of maintaining them ourselves. - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not arguing anything. I have been responding to questions that were addressed to me. If I wanted to argue, which I most assuredly do not, I would be leaving comments for other people, as you have done. Furthermore, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about what books should be listed here based on any criteria you wish to apply. I have expressed my opinion on the matter and I strive not to let my POV influence my thinking. For the record, I have never read Harry Potter or a dummy book. As far as I know, they are both highly profitable, longstanding book series. They both probably sell a lot of copies and are widely read. In short, for me they are the same and as far as I am concerned we should have articles on every one of those dummy books, just like we do for Harry Potter or any other book series that people choose to add to the site. Going further, I would see no problem with having articles on every book ever published in every language since Gutenberg. That to me would be truly encyclopedic, and I apologize for using that truly meaningless word.-- JJay 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of people have said this is "useful". I am really struggling to visualise this. Coiuld you give me an example of how it is useful please? Who would use it and for what purpose? Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone who was interested in the series of books? For the purpose of gaining information?....Isnt that what an encyclopædia is for? Jcuk 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But why is that any more useful than the snazzy categorized list that the publisher provides? FreplySpang (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG Funky Monkey 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Imacomp 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep noteable books... dont' know if a list is necessarily necessary pm_shef 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- as tertiary sources Dummies books are not individually notable (except for the occasional screwup, like a dangerous misformula in Soapmaking for Dummies, or a major early title such as DOS for Dummies). I don't think Martin Yan considers Chinese Cooking for Dummies his magnum opus. Haikupoet 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As much as I dislike the concept of these books (and am disturbed/disgusted by the percent of the populace willing to self-identify as "dummies"), you'd have a really hard time convincing me that this huge series of bestselling books isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is claiming that ...For Dummies isn't notable as a series. But a list of every title in that series isn't notable, barring any notability received by a user thinking,"Wow, there sure are a lot of ...For Dummies books." - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful reference. Bhoeble 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT and well reasoned arguments above. For those that say we should keep because we have even worse lists, one bad article does not justify another. We have an article on the series of books, and this isn't it. Friday (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per above. Tom Harrison 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let the publisher maintain it on their website. --Carnildo 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per above. ...For Dummies has a link to the publisher's website which "includes categorized lists of all titles", no good reason to try to maintain our own destined-to-become-quickly-out-of-date list. --Stormie 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay and others. Existence of information elsewhere on the Web is not a good reason to remove it from Misplaced Pages. The "...For Dummies" books are a very widely-known, widely-parodied series that I could certainly imagine people wondering if there is a "xxx for Dummies" or even just wanting to see what titles already exist. Certainly no more harmful than some of the Star Wars trivia we have here. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, I strongly object to another "relisting for better consensus" in other words "relist and hope we can get enough delete votes this time." No consensus = keep. Relisting is for when there are a small number of votes cast, no for when no specific supermajority is reached. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I've changed my vote from delete. Some of the keep arguments on here are persuasive. And they make a good point: just because something is already somewhere else on the web doesn't mean it shouldn't also be on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would have no content at all, because original research is explicitly frowned upon. --Cyde Weys 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has to be a joke, right? Let people go to the publisher for this. · Katefan0/poll 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - If this list was created by copying the list on the publisher's website, then isn't this a copyright violation? If not, then how do we furnish verifiable proof that this list is accurate? (After all, there might have been a title Starting a Life of Crime for Dummies, which was quickly suppressed -- but copies sell on eBay for tens of thousands of dollars.) -- llywrch 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You're swallowing the propaganda put out by the media conglomerates. Lots of things they're trying to make you think are copyright violations really aren't. How could a list of books possibly be a copyright violation?! That would pretty much make all library catalog systems illegal. It's in the publisher's best interests for lists of their books to be available, fer godssakes. Also, prior court findings on matters like these have been that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. A mere list of what some corporation has published, which is a fact, can't be a copyright violation. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not legal advice. But: Some think that specially ordered and categorized information is copyrightable. If this is the case, this IS a copyvio. Library catalog systems aren't copyvio, as they don't follow the same ordering/categorization as other lists. Also, they don't include/exclude the same things. IF such organized lists are copyrightable, this is definitely copyvio. There IS caselaw for copyrighting fairly mundane things. It is really grey. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't understand the purpose of the list. Why would anyone need a list of this type of series? WP:NOT FloNight 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the list is useless as is. If it included ISDN numbers, I might change my vote to "Weak Keep." -- MisterHand 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and link to the up-to-date offsite list, where appropriate. — Mar. 17, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete - we are not an indiscriminate gathering of information. The books don't even have articles yet, signaling that this list isn't needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm generally pretty apathetic when it comes to deletions, but there is really little point to having a list such as this in an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable series of books . Interestingstuffadder 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have heard people on a number of occasions wonder out loud, "Is there a 'For Dummies' book about that?" That's sufficient to tell me that this list is something that has a place in an encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify: each entry should at least be linked to an appropriate article and have an ISBN. The list should also be re-sorted to avoid simply duplicating the lists from the publisher. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not the Library of Congress Card Catalog. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The fact that an article of this size contains no wikilinks (blue or red) would alone strongly urge its deletion. If any substantial number of these books ever get their own articles, they would make an appropriate category, but a list is just... dumb. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. Unfortunately, because it is duplication of a list maintained by the publisher, and it is a long and ugly list, and it really should have at least ISBNs, and links to what articles already exist per Phil Boswell (don't create new ones, per Rynne, but there are a couple of them that are notable in their own right). But after thinking about it a couple of days --- is it a notable series? Yes, it certainly is, mentioned in hundreds if not thousands of sources. Do we keep lists of notable series? Yes, we certainly do. And what if the publisher decides, one day, to take the ones that have gone out of publication off their list? Or what if the publisher decides to sell the series to someone who won't maintain the list? Or if the publisher goes out of business? Will the series stop being notable? No. So, again, unfortunately, we should keep this list. GRuban 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE, but I will Transwiki just in case. I am not sure that the redirect suggestion is a great idea given the generic title, as pointed out, and a redirect does discard the content. The merge isn't necessary either. The author's keep is not borne out by Special:Whatlinkshere/Federal recognition, leaving only one editor supporting retention of the content. -Splash 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Federal recognition

Delete. This article's title is very ambiguous and it does nothing but directly quote legislation which has nothing to do with federal recognition of Indian tribes. This topic is given a more thorough treatment at Native_Americans_in_the_United_States. Please see talk page for further explanation. --BWD 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Most of the pages in the Indigineous project link to this page. This is the only concise and well defined reference for the requirements and definitions for "Federal Recognition". Pointing to a listing of tribes , some of which are not Federally recognized is ill advised. Also, bad faith nomination by an editor who is stalking all of my articles and either tagging to flagging them or vandalizing them User:BWD. If you remove the content, it will collapse a large number of articles. Waya sahoni 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, title too vague, content lacking, despite above claim, only 4 pages link to this. Rmhermen 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Suggest move to Federal recognition of Native Americans. savidan 04:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Literature of J

Clearly self-promotional, see WP:NOT. Wouldn't seem to meet verifiability standards - just about some website no one's really written anything about. W.marsh 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Dare

Non-notable coffeehouse owner. The biography is trying to make the owner sound more important and have more impact than he really does. Also see articles Jimmy Nil Fishhawk, Ian Meares, and G. M. Palmer, which fail notability and should be deleted, in my opinion, along with the Stephen Dare page. I want to treat the Stephen Dare voting as if all four were up for deletion. Mike H. That's hot 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn-bio, smells like vanity to me. --Terence Ong 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per nom.--Cúchullain t / c 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It does rather quack like vanity, but it also seems that Mr Dare might have some claim to notability. He has off-wiki news articles mentioning his role in the regeneration of Jacksonville and the theatre company he founded has a wiki article. I'd like to see the article cleaned up, wikified and with cited sources to establish the notability of Mr Dare - then I'd probably be happy to keep. Politepunk 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I lived in Jacksonville; believe me, he has not singlehandedly regenerated the 12th largest city in the country. Please reconsider your vote. Mike H. That's hot 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I currently live in Jacksonville and no one has ever claimed that he regenerated a city. I lived in Atlanta as well, but i wouldn't be able to comment authoritatively about anyone there either....point is the Jacksonville newspapers seems to think otherwise about the importance of his contribution. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs) .
      • One interview in a business daily does not "importance" make. I've been in my hometown's mainstream newspaper many times; I don't deserve a Misplaced Pages entry. Mike H. That's hot 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be true, but Jacksonville has five daily newspapers. The largest (the Times Union) lists 29 articles on Stephen Dare alone. None of those hits are included on the hundred or so google search hits. Also, the Times Union only includes articles written after '97, 10 years after his first article in that publication. (I looked it up) The second largest (The Jacksonville Business Journal) has 18 hits over the past three years, also not included in the gooogle search. The third largest, The Financial Daily Record has listed 10 articles either about or mentioning Dare over the past year. The Jacksonville Star, an African American daily newspaper has four articles about Mr. Dare.....the list goes on. I notice that the new links at the bottom of the page list Cincinatti as well. An assistant director at the theatre mentioned articles in the scrap book from Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta and Indiana.---- which is even more widespread than the Pensacola News Journal.
  • Keep Stephen Dare has multiple pages of reference when doing a simple google search. He doesn't own a coffeehouse, nor is he a restaurantuer by trade, although he owns and directs a dinner theatre. When I called him to inquire about the other individuals, he was unsure what the entry was about, and had never heard of 'syncretism'. Mr. Dare's page has been serially vandalized by a group of individuals who have bragged about their vandalism on their myspace pages. reference: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=887943. (scroll about midway down) When I asked about the individual, it turns out he was a disgruntled band promoter. I last updated his wiki article to flesh out his accomplishments, of which there are a number.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs)
Look at this edit comparison , courtesy of 64.193.67.231 (talk · contribs) Thatcher131 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Stephen Dare runs the Boomtown Theatre page, which was created by Stephendare (talk · contribs) last year. FWIW, Dare did not create a page for himself. The current page is probably 90% pure cowpies and you have to go back to very early edits to find a version that even comes close to looking like a verifiable article. The alternatives are to stub the article back to an early edit, verify it, then babysit it; or delete it. I'm leaning toward delete. Thatcher131 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Lexis/Nexis has several mentions in Jacksonville newspapers. Now who will babysit? Thatcher131 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Monicasdude 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as completely spoiled. This is a mess. Three WP:SNOW poets bundled with a train wreck of a possible vanity biography; a technically invalid AfD (as the co-nominated pages have not been approrpriately tagged per policy). Suggest re-list the principal target of AfD and the "poets" separately, speedily close this train wreck. Weregerbil 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • They're from the same part of Florida, supposedly follow the same "movement," yes, it is all related, and have a bit more civility, huh? Mike H. That's hot 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Please accept my apologies for any perceived incivility. It just seems to me this is an AfD for three nn poets, weakly coupled with a person of unproven notability. WP:AFD suggests not bundling AfD's if not obviously connected; I humbly suggest no such obviousneess exists. No incivility meant, beg your pardon if some observed. Please assume good faith. Weregerbil 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"Technically invalid AfD"? Oh dear god, the process wonks have won over again. You want a stupid little tag on each page? Fine, I'll go do that now. Of course, instead of moping about it, you could have done it yourself. We don't close AfDs for improper "filing" of a clerical nature, so don't be so picky. Don't bother opening whole new slanging matches for the things, just tag it and let this one run its course. Rob Church 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Took me 30 seconds. Rob Church 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if you interpreted that as some kind of hostility. It just seemed to me it would be best to list clearly nn articles separately from one that just might not be not nn (though I have my reservations). And yes, the pages listed for AfD were not tagged as such. Sorry for the inconvenience, no hostility towards anyone intended! Is this something one is not allowed to mention? Weregerbil 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that User:Carstenboswell's only edits appear to have been this AfD at the time of writing. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
? Haven't had anything to contribute authoritatively about---thanks!--I remember enjoying the Fireflies series when I lived in the Bay Area. This is a fascinating process though. Since it is my first time, I thought I would look up the rules, and found this: Also, please see this discussion on the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy regarding notability. Does this have a bearing? Carstenboswell 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Asra Jabeen Syed

De-prodded by article creator. Well, this guy is an "Assistant Producer and co-host of the Texas Music Matters radio program on KUT 90.5 FM in Austin, TX at the University of Texas at Austin." Misplaced Pages is not a place to write about random radio hosts. Punkmorten 06:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

K-Nip

De-prodded by article creator. Misplaced Pages is not a slang guide. Punkmorten 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gainesville Iguana

Delete Thoroughly non-notable political news pamphlet handed out in Gainesville, Florida. Cúchullain t / c 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Source or delete I'm not so certain it's non-notable if it's twenty years old. But it needs to be sourced or it's toast. Alba 12:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mechastrike

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE, see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MechZ. Werdna648/C\ 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Sydney Boys High School. Personally, I think merging some of the lead section is more than adequate, so that's what I'll do. -Splash 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Society of Sydney Boys High

The society has had only one mention outside of the school and is not that greatly known within the school AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

William Johnson (author)

Not notable; vanity/advertising page for someone who wrote a book, with article written by his publisher. Joejamboree 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as band vanity. - Mike Rosoft 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Japlaster

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Createthe solutions

Advertisement, no notability established (WP:CORP/WP:SOFTWARE). Contested PROD. Sandstein 08:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was closed. This way please. :) Mailer Diablo 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fjords of Vestland

No articles in category. Mefjord was incorrectly placed in category, which might be the reason for the creation of the category. Nordby73 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The category may be related to Category:Fjords of Norway, but there seems to be other possibly more relevant and "sharp" sub-categories in there. --Nordby73 09:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this belong in Categories for deletion? David Sneek 13:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this belongs to CFD, not AFD. --Terence Ong 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Oops. Sorry. Anyhow, it would be nice if someone cold help move this to CFD, or simply to remove it. Author explains in the category edit summary. --Nordby73 16:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Writers bloc

Delete: Non-notable student magazine. It's website is under development, and it just barely started being published. --Hetar 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep but suggest continued discussion for a rename/merge be furtherd in the article talk. — xaosflux 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π

Misplaced Pages is not the place for something that's just a proof. A proof originally written by someone else and available freely belongs in wikisource, math articles can (and probably should) contain proofs, but a proof on its own isn't an encyclopedia article, and the article isn't about the proof, it is the proof and little more. This is an old article, around since 2003 at least, and I think our standards have tightened since then in a way that it wouldn't pass muster if created today. Either merge into something, transwiki to somewhere more appropriate (though I can't think of one) or just delete. Night Gyr 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Transfer to wikisource. --Hetar 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks obviously. Alba 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with π. 22/7 is a very common ersatz π, so it wouldn't be out of place there. And it's not very long. David Sneek 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, as per others below. David Sneek 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Pi is a very long article, and this is a reasonable subarticle. Septentrionalis 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. why stop there? if we need a page to prove that 3.1429 is bigger than 3.1416 then why not Proof that four is bigger than three? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The notability lies in the proof, not in what is being proven. After all, isn't that what the article is about, the proof? -- 127.*.*.1 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • strong delete per bl -- pm_shef 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep – The article is well-written and gives historical background. Obiously there are many numbers exceeding π, but 22/7 is perhaps the most-common approximation of π. —BenFrantzDale 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep. It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion? What about ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of topics related to pi?? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd! Misplaced Pages is NOT supposed to be only for beginners. "Night Gyr", may I inquire about your experience with Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles? "Kiss the Lizard" very clumsily misses the point of this article. 22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π. By contrast, those decimal expansions are rather arbitrary. "kiss the lizard", what is the nature and degree of your experience with Misplaced Pages mathematics articles? Michael Hardy 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Our mathematics articles contain proofs to enlighten and back up statements, not just to be a collection of proofs. The first line of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is "This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of math texts." The fact that there's a particular proof out there may be mathematically interesting, but the proof alone does not constitute an encyclopedia article. There are other places for such raw texts, and I listed several above. Night Gyr 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • To enlighten is exactly what this article is obviously for! It's not merely proving a brute fact; the unusual simplicity and elegance of the integral and the startling result are enlightening and charming. It's really hard for me to see how anyone could have thought otherwise. Michael Hardy 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And now someone who voted for deletion tells me that he never heard of a mathematical equation, theorem, proof, or the like being called "elegant"! Never! Is it too much to ask that people on Misplaced Pages who've hardly even heard of mathematics at all might realize that mathematicians on Misplaced Pages know something about the subject? Michael Hardy 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see nothing in WP:NOT that says it doesn't belong. It's not original research since it is verifiable. It is not in the list of indiscriminate information list (nowhere close actually). I see no policy or guideline that applies. Policies & guidelines aside, I think it should stay. Otherwise, there's a long list of articles to delete. Cburnett 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move/Merge into a larger article on the fraction 22/7 - the proof should probably exist in Misplaced Pages somewhere, but I'm not sure if it deserves its own article. --AySz88^-^ 02:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not merge into Pi. As a last resort, merge as AySz88 suggested into 22/7. Fg2 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Dysprosia 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, after Michael Hardy. Ryan Reich 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; possibly merge to 22/7, but this is an interesting, elementary and elegant result in diophantine approximation. If people don't understand why this holds more interest than a "proof that 4 exceeds 3" would, then they have failed to understand the article. Remember there was a time when people hadn't worked out the value of pi. Knowing that it's close to 22/7, but not exactly, might lead one to wonder whether 22/7 is an over-approximation or an under-approximation. This proof makes it clear that 22/7 is high, so the true value of pi is somewhere below it. Sure, we know now that pi=3.14159, approximately, but people had to work that out somehow. -GTBacchus 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If that topic is the reason it's notable, why does neither article make reference to the other? Night Gyr 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point. This article now links to Diophantine approximation, but I wouldn't say "that topic is the reason why it's notable". It's notable because pi is one of the most important numbers in mathematics, and methods of calculating it are therefore notable. There's not much sense linking from Diophantine approximation unless that article grows significantly and acquires a list of particluar methods of approximation, of which this is a kind of ad hoc one, as far as that goes. -GTBacchus 06:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And I disagree with any renaming, this article has the right name I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the February 2006 issue of the American Mathematical Monthly on pages 156-151 we find "A Sequence of Polynomials for Approximating Arctangent" by Herbert A. Medina. Near the end of that article is says (verbatim):
The results herein were stumbled upon after the author became intrigued by and curious about the fact that
∫ 0 1 x 4 ( 1 − x ) 4 1 + x 2 d x = 22 7 − π ; {\displaystyle \int _{0}^{1}{x^{4}(1-x)^{4} \over 1+x^{2}}\,dx={22 \over 7}-\pi ;}
.....
This fact is just the sort of thing one would expect people to find intriguing and curiosity-provoking. That's why it's notable. Michael Hardy 17:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily. Reflect on the statement "intriguing and curiosity-provoking facts are notable" for a while, and now imagine the articles this policy could defend. It's not a pretty sight.
Off hand, I cannot think of any hypothetical articles that could be "intriguing and curiosity-provoking" but "not a pretty sight". By all means, tell me what you have in mind, if you can. Perhaps I should add to "intriguing and curiosity-provoking", that this article could lead to insights that in turn lead to further discoveries. People who see this argument often wonder if this is the first in a long sequence of integrals with a neat pattern, that correspond to the successive convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π, just as this corresponds to 22/7. Michael Hardy 00:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disputes that the fact that 22/7 is really close to π should be included in Misplaced Pages. Whether a property of an integral cast in proof form qualifies is another matter. And whether the dozens if not hundreds of equally intriguing mathematical curios should have articles is yet another.
Then again, notability has never been a useful criterion on Misplaced Pages, and the "cui malo?" argument seems to apply aptly here. This proof is probably not any less notable than, say, any of the invalid proofs we have on record. 82.92.119.11 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The key problem here is that despite all the claims to elegance and such, there's no objective criteria for inclusion that we're using to justify this article. The other articles in category:proofs are either about methods used in proofs or specific proofs that are well known and specifically named. This proof doesn't have any historical importance attached to it in the way that a proof of a major problem in math is—mathematicians have known pi<22/7 far longer than they've been doing calculus. "indiscriminate collection of information" applies because this proof becomes the equivalent of an "interesting fact" about a person--worthy of inclusion in the article on the person, but not worth its own article. On its own, it's unencyclopedic. Night Gyr 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Then we can conceivably expand the article to include other proofs of π<22/7 that may have been used in antiquity (If my memory serves me correctly, I do believe there is a geometric demonstration of that inequality). Just because the article as it stands only includes one method of proof does not mean that it can never have more than one method of proof. Dysprosia 08:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't have any really precise criterion (please don't use "criteria" in the singular!!!) for what proofs should be allowed, but this is a really pretty proof, with a verified and interesting story behind it. I don't think I'd really like to see the door opened to textbook-style routine proofs in general; certainly techniques can be outlined, but people who want the details probably should get the textbook. But I don't see why we can't have a few articles on proofs that are interesting in themselves (as distinct from the results they prove). --Trovatore 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though merging would also be OK. R.e.b. 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't merge, per Michael Hardy. linas 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, no question about it. --Deville (Talk) 03:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't merge (I agree with Michael Hardy). --Pokipsy76 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per BenFrantzDale: "The article is well-written and gives historical background." Moreover, it is notable for being short and elementary, while still not trivial. --Aleph4 16:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Pi is very important. This article, well, I would merge if Pi weren't so long.
  • keep, obviously William M. Connolley 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - but I am somewhat concerned by some of the lack of WP:CIVIL in this debate. Please try to refrain from personal attacks here folks - questioning other wikipedians' knowledge is hardly helpful. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Not a POV/OR fork of Pi, obviously notable enough, etc. JeffBurdges 04:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a fine addition to the mathematical content of Misplaced Pages. I find the argument that a proof can't be an article unconvincing. As long as it's not crap, OR, etc., I see no reason why a proof can't be an article. I think the reason this article is not part of another is that it serves some purpose to have these standalone articles. I can easily envision other articles about famous theorems that would require separate articles on different proofs. I can even imagine that in the near future (a project I'm pondering), one would even need separate articles for parts of of an immense outline of a proof in addition to separate articles just for historical background (and motivation) about the theorem and proof. --C S (Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to correct an inaccuracy above, I'm not at all convinced one can flatly state that this result was around before calculus. Archimedes and his peers certainly knew versions of at least the integral calculus and some geometric versions of special cases of the fundamental theorem. --C S (Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirected (as non-notable) to Swastika. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Swastik

Non-notable website (WP:WEB) with no Alexa data. ReDe-PRODded, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 11:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Aecis 12:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kareem Ryan

Non-notable biography, can't find anything that seems related on google. Speedy deletion contested, see Talk:Kareem Ryan. Weregerbil 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Robert Howard. — Rebelguys2 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Howard

delete no verifiable claim to notability. no imdb entry--Porturology 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

VASILIS KOSMOPOULOS

Greek TV director. Non-notable per WP:BIO, no pertinent Google hits. WP:PROD tag was re-added after being contested, which is not permissible, so it goes to AfD. Sandstein 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It has many Google hits if searched with Greek Spelling ("Βασίλης Κοσμόπουλος" or "Βασίλειος Κοσμόπουλος") Skag 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

548 and 24 google hits are not that many, considering the claim that 'lmost all the top level managers of the Greek Tv Stations are well-known to the public and they are enjoying a "star" status'. David Sneek 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I admit that David Sneek's comment is fair... If the Misplaced Pages community believes that this is a non-notable BIO , I stand corrected and waiting for deletion. My intention was to add wikipedia entries for many "behind-the-camera" TV persons , but it seems that there is no need for this.... Skag 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wooden Thomas

Non-notable artist/musician. Most notable claim is having published an album in 2004. Not much on google - a search for "wooden thomas" is pretty much all about the Tank Engine. Article is also POV. It has been around since July 2005 which is why I didn't just prod it. The articles that link to here are Casandra Stark which is tagged for cleanup and verification, and Talk:Pine Barrens (New Jersey) which only references in regard to how to format the Pine Barrens page. MLA 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Kamau

This person is not noteworthy. He is a member of the RPG Maker community, but even in this very small world, he is not really of great significance, even though he made some well-received games. I don't think any author of games from this community should have an article on Misplaced Pages because the only people who care or could have benefit from it are the fans of that person's games or the person himself. Michiel Sikma 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indinera Falls

This person created a few RPG Maker games which some people have played. This is not an official game designer, merely a person who used a game program to make some games. In that way, it falls in the same category as fanfiction writers. Delete. Deckiller 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Honda engine swaps

Currently a list of links to HOWTOs. Is there a way to make this into an article? Don't know myself so no vote. Weregerbil 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Media Spy

Article is looking more and more like an ad, and is being consistently vandalised, filled with more and more untruths about the site and its owner and administration - DELETE BigDan 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has come to my attention that members are using this Free Encylopedia to advertise Media Spy but to also use it as an outlet for their disapproval of certain aspects of our site. I believe this isn't what Misplaced Pages was designed for as this page has little to no information contained in it. Most information is wrong and if not, members are changing the info so that is wrong, so I'd like to see this page deleted! DELETE Lepatron 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Various people are making it sound like an ad/being vandalised. Kennethjwebb 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Modify. The thing looks legit, and only a bit promotional.

Delete I'd like to keep most of the content. The 'Criticisms' section is awfully harsh, too, and I had to correct a mistake there (reflex action). The thing is that the vandals are really spoiling it. Such a pity. Cyvros/Marlett 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Trendy

appears NN. been prodded before. notability asserted via the Anna Nicole Show, but if that is it, does not belong on WP. Abstain Delete. the.crazy.russian 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was renominated; for some reason, this nomination was considered closed as "no consensus", while in fact it was never closed. The article was later renominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vercetti's Comrades 2 and deleted. I am closing this one because it is shown up as unclosed by a script of mine (Liberatore, 2006). 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fail to see the noatability.Dlohcierekim 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Low Keep. I see there are slight notability issues, as I haven't heard of them, but here I was on wiki as I am a lot (without an account usually), and my brother told me to click here, and he said he's heard of them. Now I have no idea how he's heard of them as he's rarely out much, although he has done 'laserforce' (a laser game) quite a lot in the past year. This is a fellow Australian group, which has notability issues in America, Europe etc, but I feel this would make a good reference for Aussies and I've been a fan of social groups ever since high school. PeterKay, 17th March 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. -Splash 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

List of UK members of parliament who support drug law reform

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up into a simple list, with the quotes and information placed in the articles about the individual people involved, but as it stands, this needs deletion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the same thing:

--Fuzzie (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As this article stands, it is political campaign material, and not anything approaching an encyclopedia article, or even a press article. Look at the emotive wording here: "This represents just some of pubic figure and instiutions from around the world who support reform of the pesent drug laws."!!! I'd prefer to outright delete this, because of problems with the inherent subjectivity involved, but even if kept it certainly should be totally reformatted. Will we see List of UK members of parliament who support euthanasia and List of UK members of parliament who oppose gay marriage? Morwen - Talk 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Delete what if they change their mind tomorrow? lol! encyclopedia should be about facts, not beliefs subject to the whim of the holder. the.crazy.russian 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Morwen. JGF Wilks 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morwen. --Siva1979 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • neutral As written it is riddled with POV but there is the germ of a good article in there, in that several British MPs are well known to be in favour of legalisation. others are not. So it probably needs to be moved to a different title and the prominantly anti-legalisation ones listed as well. OK, yes, wrong article at the wrong title, that's usually a delete from me, but I do think this has potential. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morwen. --Terence Ong 15:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another 'ever changing list.' --BWD 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, highly suscepitble to POV. Concur with Morwen on scope as there is potential for many more repititious articles by MP vote - theyworkforyou.com has voting records for foundation hospitals, top-up fees, anti-terrorism, Iraq, ID Cards, fox hunting, and gay marriage on the main page for each MP which illustrates the number of articles that should appear if this one stays. Note that theyworkforyou does not have drug law reform and I can't think of anywhere else that would have the verifiable NPOV resourcing that would allow this article to not be OR. MLA 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Strong Delete as the good faith that I had assumed regarding ill-informed soapboxing appears to have been misplaced. MLA 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on some of the comments so far:
Instead of moaning: you could help rephrase what you perceive to be POV and what you perceive to be emotive wording. After all, 108 MEP signed one declaration hence the wording to show it is incomplete -how else do you say it? If someone else can phrase it better then let them help. The list is also need to counter the comments by some, that there is little support for improvements to the existing laws -which itself is POV. Or do you want to have it both ways? Also, it is hardly (or wont be) 'indiscriminate'... And Look at all the articles listing just 'highways', etc. Why don't you put them up for deletion? Just go to list of lists and look though a few lists of things. =http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Allpages/List_of As for it being untidy -it is. I am far from happy with it. There is still information to go on and if you look at the creation date it has only just been created . Some of you might have time to sit at the computer all day but some of us have other things to do. Much of this info is being collected be people who have to pick up the pieces (e.g., social workers, probation workers, lecturers in crime prevention etc) after things go wrong from laws that badly need improving. I expect few of you ( by the way you write) have got any crack houses near you, nor have witnessed at first hand the horror of it all, or your mind might be making connections to the wider picture, about what this list represents. Have you had people drop to the floor and turn blue, would you know how to handle it? Do you know were I and all these other people views are coming from?
As for the comment about any body on the lists changing their mind, it can be updated LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE that apt to change.
These articles seem to have been picked up by people who have not thought about it, nor realised that will links in with other stuff - do they reasonably expect that whole thing to be set up at once? Finally: If you look on the first talk page of the first article created it says:
These lists may not make sense to some people who are out of the loop until some of the other templates go on to explain the background and place the lists in context. This maybe finished by the end of the month. But because of what promises to be its eventual size and geographical and political range, the words, phrasing, syntax etc. need to be got right first. --Aspro 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) So some of you haven't even bothered to read it properly.--Aspro 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was 'Delete — xaosflux 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kvlt Promo Grrrl

346 Googles for a netlabel does not argue notability. The only external source is the website. Almost all the links are red, and probably best if they stayed that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Crab Smasher

I think this might be a hoax. Hpuppet 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

List of ThinkTanks players, List of TT Armies and Player Alias Index

Non-notable gamecruft vanity, etc. I reckon Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TT Players gives authority to speedy these but I will take a second opinion. -- RHaworth 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've been a TT player for over 2 years and just about EVERYONE who plays the game thinks we need this index listing of past and current players. We usually keep the list on another personal website but believe it makes more sense to keep it on wikipedia where the players can update the list themselves. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia and one of its primary beauties? Self-sustenance? The same goes for the player alias list that links to this list.
It reveals/shares all of the psuedonyms used by players and the meanings behind their names. Paisano® 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a free host or webspace provider. -- RHaworth 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You are only allowed one vote and have you looked at my talk page? -- RHaworth 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well is there another way to include this information with our wikipedia entry without going back to external links? What about using stubs? Paisano® 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A list of players? Not really... There are free web site providers, those welcome your information, and they often have chat sites etc. Much better than Misplaced Pages for organizing a gaming clan. Google should find you such sites, or ask for opinions in gaming chat sites. Weregerbil 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Memoirs of a Daydreamer Jonesboria Discordia

Delete vanity press publications, not for sale on Amazon. Deprodded without reason--Porturology 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ragnar Grímsson

Based on what I find, this band doesn't satisfy WP:NMG & . PJM 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Great Willmar, Minnesota Raid

Although a notable figure seems to have been involved in Machine Gun Kelly, this seems a non-notable event. To quote from the original version of the article: "...few people know much about it, if anything at all. And Willmar doesn’t celebrate the event or even talk about it." Obviously it needs a massive clean up but I think there's nothing worth saving. It seems that it was copied straight from a local-interest type book by one Terry Shaw who is also apparently the user who created this page. Spondoolicks 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Quadrant Delta

A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Note the similar AfD on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Borderlands rpg MLA 16:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Terry Tales, Terry Tales 2 and Terry R. Shaw

Seems to be self-published local-interest book. Article was created by the book's author. See talk page for more details. Spondoolicks 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - per nomination. --JiFish(/Contrib) 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the author of the books article (Terry R. Shaw) was also nominated for deletion by User:195.92.168.174 but the process wasn't completed. I completed it by changing the AfD tag to point to this discussion. --JiFish(/Contrib) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Amazon rank over 1 million, author fails WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination - local-interest books that I've never actually seen in local bookstores. --Elkman - 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I'm removing this vote and recusing myself from this discussion because I've pissed off the author. Since I've never done a damn noteworthy thing in my life, OBVIOUSLY I'm not even qualified to participate in AfD votes or to edit an encyclopedia. You can go ahead and vandalize my page now, since everyone else who objects to my AfD articles vandalizes my page. --Elkman - 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and no evidence of books' notability.--Isotope23 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Anyone who finds the town notable enough for inclusion will find the book useful and notable as well. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Although clearly the three articles should be merged and nonsense like "popular book" should be made NPOV. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My two books have sold over 5000 copies and are currently being sold by Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com. I'm being inducted into the Minnesota Rock/Country Hall of Fame in May of 2006. When you "watchdogs" have done something this noteworthy, then go ahead and delete the articles about me. Until then, they should be left alone. ]
  • Userfy and please don't bite a well-meaning newbie here. User:Torshaw made many good contributions to Minnesota articles. Yes, every one of them needs cleanup and rewritting to fit our style, but the content of these is valuable and I'd like to encourage Terry to keep adding good stuff. Jonathunder 02:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per Jonathunder. JoshuaZ 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge to Terry R. Shaw or The Defiants. I think that the case to be made here is that in aggregate Shaw merits an article. The main grounds for inclusion is the involvement in The Defiants, which while at best barely meeting WP:MUSIC, is better evaluated through the lens of history. The fact that they are being The Defiants had local significance prior to the ubiquity of local rock bands, and as such are rather more significant than the dozens of bands that we delete daily. Further, though the articles themselves need copyediting, there are enough facts to build upon. Shaw's books, despite being of local interest, have nonetheless sold in the thousands, making this more than a mere church-basement project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christina Ritter

Looks like another vanity entry. No IMDB entry (despite the link), Google picks up almost nothing when cross-searching her with the movies she has supposedly appeared in...

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

The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux 04:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zelda DS

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per the not a crystal ball thing. I was the one who originally prod'ed it. The only other contributor continued to remove it without reason. I wasn't exactly sure if that meant to take it to this level, but oh well. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For your information - if anyone removes PROD for any reason (or no given reason), do not revert it, take it to AfD. Mentioning "prod removed without reason" will probably encourage some scrutiny =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As above. Games are cancelled in development all the time. --Ricaud 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously, no might in the world can stop Nintendo from making a Zelda game for DS... but we don't yet know when, what, or how. Until then, no reason making an article about it. Makes as much sense as an article titled "2009 in video gaming" right now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Replicator (band)

Delete as nn band. Article was originally {{prod}}'d, but tag was removed due to claims that the band met WP:MUSIC. While it appears to be true that the band has gone on a tour, and that they have produced two albums...they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC because touring in and around San Fransisco (with a couple of shows in Seattle and Portland) can hardly be considered a national concert tour, and without a more clear definition of what "one of the more important indie labels" means, the two albums were not released by "one of the more important indie labels". Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep meets WP:MUSIC. The national tour wasn't "in and around San Francisco," but from SF to Palmer, MA and points in between during their "ReplicaTour" , which qualifies them for a national tour. A simple look at their website indicates this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Both albums are listed on allmusic.com, plus the tour, . PJM 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep. Band has gone on several tours and produced two albums. While they are not as active today as they've been in the past, that certainly doesn't seem to be grounds for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request - military secret that leaked out - actually he said more commercial than military. -- RHaworth 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Automatic Wire Test Set (AWTS)

This document defines the requirements for the … test set that will replace. No original research, WP is not a crystal ball and Misplaced Pages is not a free host (see talk page) all apply. Joe Lombardi - I have just this moment been thanked for pointing someone else towards Wikicities where you can create your own wiki. I think you should go there too. -- RHaworth 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Creator of AWTS article says...

Please delete the article at your earliest possible convenience! -- Joe Lombardi 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy userfy. - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Timo Kouwenhoven

This appears to be an autobiography/résumé, made and edited almost solely by its subject. In fact, the vast majority of edits from User:Timo Kouwenhoven have been on this article.


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

The result of the debate was Keep — xaosflux 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan Wood

THis person is not notable. Delete article --Light current 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consumarchy

Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher. Prod tag removed so bringing it here.

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Marler Gentry

Pathetic article.Bewibes 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of video game consoles. — Rebelguys2 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Video Game Consoles A-Z

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was There is already a similair article here: List of video game consoles. It has much more information and consoles on it. . Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lori Hoglund

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Apparent vanity page, notariaty cannot be independently verified. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio -SCEhardT 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexis Wengraf

This is a Vanity Page Steve 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Jewish American criminals and victims

Initially listed under prod, the tag was removed and then replaced within 24 hours. I've brought it here for a proper evaluation, since the rules of prod specify that the tag cannot be replaced when removed by another user. I'm leaving messages on the users talk pages as well. BTW, I'm neutral on the question. JGF Wilks 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm hard-pressed trying to figure out what use this article would be. Aplomado - UTC 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Like all such lists, it creates issues of verifiability, and is essentially indiscriminate (ie, there is no evidence that these people have similar views on Judaism, observe it to the same degree in their lives, regard themselves as Jewish, don't share other ethnicities as well as a connection to being Jewish, etc.) So, there is no meaning, no encyclopedic reason to group these people together. Slowmover 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable and pointless list, POV-bait. Sandstein 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Bucketsofg 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion and we have verifiability issues. Isn't every person who invested in these Enron-type companies a "victim" so any who are also (verifiably) Jewish get added to the list? No usefulness for that. As for the criminal side, there was certainly Jewish-run organized crime rings (equivalent to the Italian mafia), a list of those players may be encyclopedic and useful, but this is a collection of crooks of varying decrees of culpability and Jewishness -- moreover, I find no evidence in the biographies of Sarah Jane Moore and the Menendez brothers that they are even faintly Jewish. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Nobody makes list of Christian or Islamic criminals, why should a list of Jewish criminals be made? This is absurd and this page should be deleted ASAP.--GorillazFanAdam 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's taken me a while to realise what I feel about this page. I think I can see merit in a page that attempted to list people who were victims because they were Jewish (though I'm aware that verification might often be difficult) and that similar lists of victimization because of different creeds, lifestyle, political views etc. might be created could have a place. This list is not such a list. Any list that fixes on this or other character attributes is arbitary (at best) and potentially inflammatory at worst. No longer neutral. JGF Wilks 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete unencyclopedic inflammatory offensive Funky Monkey 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What disappoints me is that we couldn't get this kind of consensus on the List of Muslim athletes just a few days ago. Slowmover 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Inflammatory, innaccurate as to the Menendez brothers and agree pov bait.--Dakota ~ ° 08:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Preserve! This list has been here for quite a while and only just now has become controversial; If the argument is simply that Jews shouldn't be singled out for special treatment, then all the many other lists of Jews (writers, businesspeople, etc., etc., etc.) should be deleted as well; Likewise the lists of American murderers and American criminals also represent a demonizing of a particular group which I as an American could legitimately object to or question the point of, but I don't because (as an American who occasionally jaywalks) I also believe in the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which I believe is still in effect, although sometimes I wonder); Admittedly the external links for the Knoller/Noel dog-mauling case were originally to a decidedly anti-Semitic site , but I have since linked them to the CourtTV site since these two convicted killers of Diane Whipple don't have a Wiki page (although they deserve one, like all the other well-known figures on the list). As for the Menendez brothers, their father was a Cuban Jew, and after his murder Erik made his way briefly to Israel where Jews have special automatic citizenship status and therefore won't be extradited to the U.S. to face capital punishment; Removing this list without removing all the many other lists of Jews and lists of criminals would be caving in to censorship and hypocrisy-- something condemned by a certain well-known New Testament Jewish prophet revered by billions of Christians and Muslims. — Someone (not me) went to the trouble of creating this list quite a while ago, and apparently no one objected until now. Someone also (not me) went to the trouble (last November) of changing it from just "criminals" to "criminals and victims" -- and someone else (me) moved the list of victims to the top of the page to give it more prominence. Clearly an effort is being made to present the facts as fairly as possible, which suggests anything but "inflammatory" and "anti-Jewish advocacy" as the above commenters claim. A few of the names I added have already been legitimately removed because they were not actually convicted of a crime, which I admit I should have been more careful about. It's not a question of whether I personally "like these lists" -- yes, I like the way that Misplaced Pages is filled with an amazing degree of cross-referencing via hyperlinks, of which the thousands of "these lists" are an integral part. I also like the way Misplaced Pages goes to great lengths to present an amazing variety of facts from its famously neutral P.O.V., and provides for lively discussions like this one when disputes inevitably erupt. If people thought that Wiki was being "sanitized for your protection" from anything icky, they might start to take it all with a grain of salt -- as they do with the dumbed-down information presented through the mainstream media, which is why people are turning more and more to websites like Wiki. The essential point is that this list is only one of dozens and dozens of Misplaced Pages lists and categories of Jews, Americans, victims and criminals -- not even counting other ethnicities and nationalities. There are no fewer than 59 pages in the Category:Lists of Jews alone -- should this be changed to "Lists of Good Jews" only, with a little happy face ☺ next to each entry? Or perhaps a gold star ★? What makes any of these pages any more or less "meaningful" than any other page in Misplaced Pages, or on the web? The question "Why should people who are 'Jewish' be collected together?" can be answered with a rhetorical "Why shouldn't they?" Wouldn't removing these 59 lists (and all the dozens of sublists therein) be an act of ethnic cleansing? If you have a problem with a particular name on a particular list, consider removing it while stating exactly why. But please don't delete (i.e., censor) the entire list unless all such lists are "cleansed" from all of Misplaced Pages -- G☺d forbid! -- 4.240.123.114 11:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC) -- ElCabezón
    • Comment. You seem to be missing the point. This isn't about censorship or freedom of expression. If you like these lists, create one on a website. The point is what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which should collect meaningful information and try for objectivity (not POV). This information is not meaningful. If it has a meaning, please explain what that is. Why should people who are "Jewish" be collected together? Aren't they individuals, with individual views? They might object to being categorized like this. Arguing that there are other lists on Misplaced Pages which are just as problematic does not address the issue. Slowmover 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I think there's a weak case to be made for listing positive contributors belonging to a particular faith, as they could have some encyclopedic value in disproving certain preconceptions. But the very title of this page crosses the line into anti-Jewish advocacy. — RJH 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per RJH - Newport 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Preserve. It seems no different than the other 31 "List of Jewish American...." Ted 22:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Misplaced Pages is going to have a list of famous victims and criminals, there is no reason to categorize that list based on what religion the victims/criminals happened to have. --Tifego 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Preserve. Nearly every single list of Americans have criminal lists. Why should it be different for Jews? Its all factually accurate information I dont see the problem. Secondly it is showing some Jews in a unfavorable light so its moving towards censorship. Every ethnic group has it's criminals there is no reason to try to hide it. It is not an attack on Jews.

Jerry Jones 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if it becomes reduced to Jewish criminals which would be a reasonable list. JoshuaZ 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it would be better to split into a list of criminals vs. a list of murder victims, but the Jewishness of the people in the list IS an interesting and encyclopedic reason for this list to exist. Jews (and Jewish Americans), just like every other ethnic or religious group, are sometimes interested in who of them are criminals, musicians, actors, etc. Furthermore, as the criminals are all different types, this would be hard to duplicate with the Category system. Mangojuice 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this and other similar "ethnic/religious criminals" lists. -Will Beback 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I didn't know there were Jewish gangsters, but I agree with Will: we shouldn't have criminal lists based on religion and ethnicity. --Candide, or Optimism 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unencyclopedic per Snowspinner and others. Johntex\ 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No value for having this list. --Vsion 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see what value any of these lists have. Gerard Foley 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A part of this page was spun off into a new article titled List of Jews in the mafia. The edit summary is "looks like the criminals page is going to be deleted but this I believe should be salvaged because it has encyclopedic value" which appears to be an attempt to bypass AfD. -- JLaTondre 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It doesn't look that way to me at all, someone thought that a segment of the list was valid and so is creating a list around that. I don't see an issue. If you think there is a problem, then nominate it for deletion. JoshuaZ 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Please note that I have not voted on this debate. That's because I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, the entire list is up for debate. Whether someone thought that segment of the list is valid or not, is irrelevant. Extracting a portion of it and creating a new article without even mentioning it on the AfD is not proper. The proper step would have been to edit the existing article and attempt to convience people to vote keep on the revised article. Regardless, my comment is just that, a comment - it's up to the closing admin to decide how to handle it. -- JLaTondre 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I find this whole debate very disturbing. There is no reason not to have lists of types of people by nationality: it's not only encyclopedic, it's actually interesting, which is one step higher, and religion should be no different from nationality. However, I am actually quite offended by the idea that because it's a list of "bad people" we shouldn't have it. That's POV pushing! It's one thing if the community thinks none of these lists are worth having... I disagree, but fine. But it is NOT antisemitism to have a list of Jewish criminals: we have lots of other lists of Jews, for one thing, but even if we didn't, and even if it WAS antisemitism, that can't be a basis for excluding it from a neutral encyclopedia. I strongly agree with 4.240.213.168's two comments. Mangojuice 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If it matters at all, I'm Jewish and I strongly agree with you. JoshuaZ 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Do you see lists of Islamic or Christian criminals? If it was a list of criminals by nationality, fine, but there should not be a list of criminals based on their religious views. Oh and JoshuaZ, based on your previous comments I highly doubt you are Jewish. --GorillazFanAdam 01:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment' That's nice. And what gave you that idea? JoshuaZ 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment "If it becomes reduced to Jewish criminals which would be a reasonable list" is what you said, or are (Personal attack removed) --GorillazFanAdam 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Yes, Jewish victims and criminals would be much too large a list if done properly, and in any situation, criminals are (to my mind) more interesting and arguably more encyclopedic than victims. Victims are passive, generally just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals on the other hand, there is action to it. Its like how Iago is a more interesting character than Othello. I fail to see how my list preference is an indication of my Jewishness. JoshuaZ 04:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Indeed, if you wanted a list of American Jewish victims you'd have to list thousands. - Newport 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment Jewishness is not a word, so I do not really understand what you were trying to say in that sentence. A list of Jewish criminals, they already have an anti-semetic site you may be familiar with, called jewatch for that, no need to put propaganda on this site as well. I really would not be suprised if you were a sock puppet for 4.240.213.168. Now please, (Personal attack removed) --GorillazFanAdam 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment Yes, because if I were an anti-semitic sockpuppet, I really would have made this comment , this edit, this edit , and especially this one among others. It is not anti-semitic to have a list that happens to contain a few bad seeds. Every ethnic/religious/cultural/whatever(I'm not getting into the argument about how to define what it means to be Jewish) has some bad seeds. Wanting a list for them doesn't make one a bigot. Now, can we please concentrate on the AfD at hand? JoshuaZ 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the Jews and the Mafia list, it is an encyclopedic topic, probably even deserves its own article. Note that there have been at least two mainstream books on the topic in the last decade: . JoshuaZ 05:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Go make a category. savidan 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy Delete: Maintaining the list in an encyclopaedia is pointless. --Soumyasch 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone think that this sort of list is substantially different from List of Jewish actors and actresses? If so, I'd like to understand exactly why. JoshuaZ 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chikkaveera Rajendra

Hi - This article has remained unsourced for a long time. It is one sentence about a novel based on some historical events - I don't think it should be retained in present form. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sprachcaffe

User Nri06 added linkspam to "sprachcaffe.com" on six language articles and then created this article. It's an advertisment. Imroy 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CITES Help Desk

University of Illinois is notable. The IT department probably isn't. The helpdesk of the IT department for certain sure is not. WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TNA 2006 World X Cup Tournament

"forthcoming", "will be", "no confirmed members" - you can see where this is leading can't you? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Democratic National Conference

Hi - I consider this non-notable, and it has remained unsourced and unedited for 2 months. Rama's Arrow 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (I think). I think this was a genuine historical party. And given that it is India may have had millions of members and still have been minor there. I think that this article should be sourced and expanded. Bucketsofg 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is obviously an article about a real party. It was created by Soman, who is the creator of the majority of the articles about left wing parties and organizations. The article just needs references and, of course, improvement. If you delete this one you'll have a reason to delete the remaining hundreds of leftwing parties stubs like this. Afonso Silva 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete You convinced me—getting rid of some stubs that nobody ever bothers to flesh out, and which would probably be nonnotable if they did, sounds good. Gene Nygaard 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    We should encourage a stubbed article rather than red links. Notability is the criteria, not "stubbiness". =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realized that deleting all the stubs was the policy in wikipedia. Afonso Silva 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rama is show a rather ignorant approach to Kashmiri political history. The progressive elements of National Conference played an important role in the time just after independence, especially in drafting its state constitution. The fact that this party was led by Sadiq, who later became Chief Minister is also notable. Thirdly, this group is the alma mater of all communist movements in Kashmir, the root of the presence of Naxalites in the state, and later the current CPI(M) branch (which is represented in the legislative assembly). --Soman 14:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- political parties are notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unsourced and unedited is not enough grounds for deletion in this case, sorry. --Gurubrahma 10:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - Ganeshk (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nigel Kimber

States he is notable, famous even, but the claim is unverifiable - our survey says four unique hits for "Nigel Kimber" guitar. Some sly digs, I suspect complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

SutraSonic

Delete NN duo signed on an unproven label. There was a finding of an assertion of notability by Stifle, who removed db-band. the.crazy.russian 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable group. Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Generation Changers Ecumenical Bible Club

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. The title can be changed at will. I do observe though, that whilst I assume good faith, no evidence has been presented that this does, in fact, exist. -Splash 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Schoeners

As the original PRODder noted, there are no Google hits for "The Schoeners saturday night live". Delete as probable hoax. Sandstein 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Skinner

Per Worldcat, one library owns the book listed. Very hard to search for other books by the same author as there is an American author named Jonathan Skinner who has written a ton of books on economic issues. Thatcher131 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps delete this page as NN and create a new article featuring the more academically known economist? Arbusto 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, she did do a Widcombe church page, and she did the Skinner page, but I take it that these are matters she happens to know about. Since she also did this page Tota_pulchra_es, a page reflecting on Mary and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is contrary to Baptist and other Protestant theology, so it is unlikely that she has POV issues, whereas there is systematic deletion of Christian related articles going on all over Misplaced Pages. I think it is one thing when there are two sides trying on the one hand to increase Christian content and on the other to delete it, but it's a pity if the contributions of someone who had no such intention, and was merely writing about something local to her, should be caught up in this. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability is further established. the.crazy.russian 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' I know I created this page, but I believe Jonathan Skinner is well known in many circles in Britain, and is an important figure in evangelical teaching and the FIEC. He writes many articles for the evangelical times and is a renowned scientist. He has given many talks and lectures attended by wide audiences. Delete if you wish, but these are my reasons for proposing to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyemery (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments. If you would like to strengthen the article by adding information that will independently establish (outside your own opinion) his importance, feel free to do so. Check the guidelines for help on verifiability and inclusion of biographies. Things like newspaper accounts of his lectures, book reviews (if he has written any) will help establish verifiability and notability. The AfD discussion runs for 5 days before closing, and if you have made significant improvement you can ask for a reconsideration. Thatcher131 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I see you added some articles he wrote. That is useful, but it would be more useful to list articles about him. Thatcher131 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sugarpie Honeybunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a possible sock puppet. First edit ever was to add 4 articles to the Skinner page and second edit was this vote. The user has not made a third edit. Arbusto 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would be curious to know how an unsigned anonymous user with an IP address belonging to a German cable company would know this. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That user was me, I could not sign in as I was on a school computer. I assure you that I have not created any sockpuppets. That would be a waste of time and no doubt someone would notice. Abbyemery 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you couldn't log in, but thanks for clarifying. Thatcher131 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If I had signed in I would have been spotted by the teacher not doing the work that I was supposed to be doing, and I would not have been able to make the edit at all! Abbyemery 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Me again. Sorry that I'm still fighting this, but I really believe that this guy is notable. - his website, featuring information about the book he wrote and a radio program he recorded for BBC radio 4 (). - a page providing information on his book.
    • I think it would help more if the links were not all self-promotional. Except for one review of one book, nobody seems to care about him outside his immediate circle. Slowmover 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Slowmover, I don't understand what kind of link you want? Ask me and I'll try to search for it. I'm not being deliberately ignorant, but I'm still at school. Abbyemery 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
We are looking for evidence that other people beyond Skinner himself and possibly a small circle of parishoners and fans finds him insteresting enough to write about. If 2 people think he's important, then he probably isn't; if ten thousand people think he is important, he problably is. The dividing line is invisible and fuzzy. To help the wikipedia community evaluate specific people, we look for outside evidence. See below. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidence Lexis/Nexis search covering the past 12 months finds several columns written by Skinner for the Western Daily Press and some letters to the editor replying to him in one way or another. He takes on Richard Dawkins, who had just run a 2-part BBC special declaring that religion was immoral, and he defended tony Blair, who was criticized by the press for saying that God would judge the rightness of the Iraq invasion. Also a book review that thought Skinner's book proceeded from a logical fallacy and would only be convincing to the already convinced. (I can't link to Lexis/Nexis but I can provide the dates and page numbers; I don't know if the Western Daily Press has a web presence or not.) I have not voted yet, leaning toward keep but would like to know what others think in light of this Lexis/Nexis search. Based on the fact that he has published 50+ newspaper columns in addition to a column in the Evangelical Times, and because we have dozens of articles on the Expanded Universe (Star Wars), we can keep this one too. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good evidence, hadn't seen that. I'd add and re-clarify that he writes for the Evangelical Times which has a circulation of about 40 000. I believe that he is therefore notable as a journalist. People disagree? Abbyemery 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice one Slowmover. But if you search, you'll find lots of reviews of the book (The Edge of Known Reality and Beyond) coming from independent reviewers/publications. Being a journalist is not notable, but being a notable journalist is something else altogether. Abbyemery 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief, I missed the fact that "Evangelical Press" is the publisher of his book. So I don't find any independent reviews, just what appears to be his own site, the publisher's site, the sites of booksellers and some blogs.....Slowmover 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep apparently somewhat notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidence See the article's talk page. He seems to be notable and quotable in and around Bath but I didn't find evidence of wider penetration; not to say it isn't there, but the burden is on Abby and I've done all I can. Just for the sake of argument I raise this point on the value of importance as a criteria. His existence and viewpoints can certainly be verified based on his public writings. Thatcher131 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's verifiable, seems somewhat notable and exists. Which is more than you can say for all the crappy pokemon characters that have articles. Jcuk 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although there should also be a disambiguation page, as there is also an American Professor of economics in print and an ecopoet both of whom share that name and each feature higher in Google, it has to be admitted, although this is no accurate measure of notability. I disagree with the point about it being a vanity article as there is no evidence that the user who created the article has any POV-bending connexions with the subject. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable Cursive 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks Verifiable & Notable. Nothing to lose to keep.--Michaelwmoss 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason at all to delete this Itake 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, it's me again, I'm a bit of a newbie to this and I'm just wondering: is the page kept purely on votes for delete or keep, despite the fact that a lot of the delete votes came in before evidence was displayed? Abbyemery 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No. Only one vote per person is allowed, but the decision is not made by the volume of votes (therefore, multiple votes by one person make no difference anyway). After 5 days, unless it looks like more time is required, an Admin will review the debate, decide if there was a consensus, and act on the consensus. This looks like no consensus to me (IMHO), so it's likely that this page will not be deleted. Slowmover 15:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Musicological Society of India

Hi - a non-notable subject; stub has remained one-line for a long while. Seems more like a promo for CMSI. Rama's Arrow 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn & no delete votes. Renamed to Mass Transit incident (ECW) per recommendation. -- JLaTondre 23:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass transit incident

Unsourced confusing nonsense, probable hoax or prank. Apparently copied from the description text of a Youtube video, as found here, that has since been removed "due to terms of use violation" . Sandstein 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted per Aplomado. Sandstein 19:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neo Communism

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Himachal Vikas Congress

Hi - this article has remained a stub and unsourced for over a year. The subject is only semi-notable. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stringlish

Not notable neologism Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, although I observe some claimed references at the end. The editor who examined at least one of them found it to be wholly lacking, however. -Splash 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hypermodernity Club

Self-styled "philosophy discussion group/academic alliance/secret-society". 200 google hits, and that includes hits for a band of the same name; I can't tell if they're related, but if they're not, they're both even less notable. This page appears to have some of their wicked-deep writings; see also the correspondence course ad at . Delete as Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day. bikeable (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the Talk page to this AfD:

Unfortunately, some of your patrols seem to be ignorant college students with little knowledge of the subjects they are policing, thus making this entire "wikiproject" absurd by design. Though I find all of this amusing, I have no desire to engage in a long discussion as to the merits of my entry, I merely posted it on a whim after finding its entry strangely absent from your database. I am a university professor and not only am I aware of the club, I attended the hypermodern lecture series with the esteemed Mr. Baudrillard himself at my institution. The presence of the club has been written up in several books, the authenticity of which I do not doubt, and if that is insufficient I will leave the "google-ing" to you.

I wish wikipedia the best into the future and by all means do what you wish with my entry.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs) bikeable (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN, vanity. Authors commentary (and omniscience regarding other wiki editors) notwithstanding. Slowmover 21:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. According to author, my (ongoing) graduate education in philosophy must be worthless, as I've never heard of this society. Website contains no serious philosophy, just nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricaud (talk • contribs)


  • Do Not Delete So since you haven't "heard of it" the entry should be deleted, above poster? That's essentially what this sophomoric debate amounts to, 1.) a 2-second google search, and 2.) philosophy students upset that a professor (rightly) calls them out as unknowing. I, too, had never heard of this organization until reading the entry, but as a New Yorker, I certainly remember the Baudrillard lecture to which the entry refers. I regret that I could not make it. Can you clarify why you consider it "vanity", or "made up in school" because both accusations are tenuous at best?
    • Comment. I think we understand it's not "made up". However, is it appropriate for Misplaced Pages to have an article about something of very little significance outside the small group of people who are familiar with it? If it is notable, provide a published reference. See WP:Notability, where the POV nature of "notability" is discussed. IMO, this is NN. Slowmover 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Will Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.141.164 (talk • contribs)
  • You mean, you'd never heard of it until you took the deletion tag off the page? Fair enough. In any case, Paulambery01 says it's been "written up in several books", so now we just need a reference and we'll be satisfied. Otherwise, how could we tell whether it was made up or not? bikeable (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Against my better judgment I am returning to this debate because Misplaced Pages, an incredibly ambitious project (apparently) run by students, is certainly intriguing to this old-timer academic who just recently got used to e-mail! I applaud you all. In fact, I'm sure I'd love to have you all in any of my classes for some lively discussions. But to the issue - I pulled this book from my shelf, which unfortunately is in German (loosely translated): "The Decline of the Frankfurt School in European Universities" by Karl Zinner, Uni Saarland, 2002, which contains several pages on the relatively new organization (pgs. 134-145). If anyone is interested please investigate so that this discussion can move beyond such hypersensitive sentiments such as "my (ongoing) graduate education in philosophy must be worthless" and into the merits of the club itself, which are somewhat insidious if taken at face value. Also, one might consider contacting Slippery Rock University philosophy Professor Bernard Freydberg, who surely can offer more on the subject than I. Finally, I want to apologize if I have offended anybody with my previous remarks on this subject.

Paulambery01 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

    • I can't imagine why I'm still following this thread, but as for Herr Zinner, the only book by an author of that name in either my university library, the consortium of libraries to which we belong, the Harvard library, or the University of Saarland library is Supercharging of internal combustion engines : fundamentals, calculations, examples / K. Zinner. (Saarland does carry it, you will be pleased to know.) Alas, I suspect K. Zinner's grasp of "continental thought" is as weak as mine. bikeable (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete
    • You have found the wrong author, Bikeable.

Paulambery01 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery


  • Do Not Delete
    • Friends, and fellow thinkers,

As a Brooklynite, I am amused to find wikipedia entrys for “Rubulad,” a debaucherous party that occurs every few months on the Northside, and the entry for “East Williamsburg Industrial Park,” which is where I live, described condescendingly in its sophomoric entry, and to LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution which could be assailed by number of history professors. Being an academic myself, I am curious to understand why references to both Jean Baudrillard and Martin Heidegger cannot philosophically legitimize an “entry” into your ghoulish dream of information consolidation. Also, I would like to know how many moderators and even "philosophical grad students" are not only versed in Attic and Homeric Greek, but are intimate with those earliest of thinkers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Anaximenes, that forcefully mark the inception of "Western thinking."

You allow entire entries which are devoted to “reptoid conspiracies,” which allege that the ruling global elite are actually shape-shifting reptilian creatures who sprung from an ancient genetic experiment, perpetrated by a dim race of ET visitors. The entry for this is quite exhaustive, preposterous, and downright insulting to those of us who do, in fact, descend from the reptoid bloodline, and do not have some insidious dream to enslave humanity through domestic internment camps, internet regulation, and RFID bio-metric ID cards. Please, show some discretion, and permit these people who, like bees flung from their hive, and deep into the mists of fragrant gardens, seek only to pollinate and prolong their sweet, succulent existence.

Most respectfully yours,

Professor J.P.W. Cragglestocker

  • Do Not Delete
    • To whom it may concern,

While I believe it is irrelevant to dicker over the fine points of this entry. I cannot help but remark when the pot calls the kettle black. Just the other day, I was reading how political yes-men had been consistently ammending and omitting submited data for Misplaced Pages entries on various politicians. What we have here is a fine object lesson in information theory. Misplaced Pages itself represents the hypermodern attitude toward information - vis a vis the flux, eternal expansion and user generation that categorize the internet as a whole. If the mavens of Misplaced Pages believe themselves to be one iota holier than the myspace whores, with regard to self-promotion by users, they have a tragic lack of self-insight. The roots of the Wiki project and the internet itself are in a mistrust of absolute truth, cancerous generation and alternative history, which come together like Voltron to form the god Narrative. If ya don't know your roots, then you got no culture. And I'll shed no tears when big Fox Murdoch separates your wheat from its chaff.

sincerely, L. O'Hara

Comment. My sympathies to the Admin who closes this one out. Slowmover 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Comment. I have just confirmed gone out of my way to verify that Davidson and Northwestern, as I stated in the initial entry, have *confirmed* chapters for the Hypermodernity Club. Please call them yourselves if you must verify this even further. Moreover, a colleague of mine, the head of philosophy at Tulane university, served as US chapter President for 2004, thus confirming that the group is "notable". As far as anyone with any sort of intellectual acumen is concerned, Now the burden of proof as to the club's worthiness for inclusion into the Misplaced Pages database falls on the above moderators (students) who so rashly dismissed it.

Edit: Paulambery01 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

Great news. Now we just need some way to verify that, and we'll be all set. bikeable (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's up to you, I've already done too much. If your agenda is to prevent this organization from inclusion into your hairbrained database, then so be it. Paulambery01 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/maison/events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom and slowmover
  • Keepobviously there is notability here. despite ill tempered comments on part of supporters, it isnt our job to define validity of philosophy. One of the worlds largest religions started with one lonely guy and a few believers.ZornArmand 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Zornarmand
    • Note: this is ZornArmand's 8th edit or so, to 5 different AfD debates. Delete. Hypermodernity is certainly a notable concept and a movement. Paul Ambery's book reference by Karl Zinner doesn't exist on the Library of Congress online catalog. Existence of clubs at two universities doesn't make the overall organization notable. As a "secret society" it's impossible to verify any of this information without actual sources. Mangojuice 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: References to the Hypermodernity Club can be found here: Baudrillard, Jean. Le ludique et le policier. Sens & Tonka. Paris, March 2000 pages 67-71.

Baudrillard, Jean. Le complot de l'art suivi de Entrevues à propos du complot de l'art. Sens & Tonka. Paris, 1999, pgs. 45, 62, Paperback

Baudrillard, Jean. The End of the Millennium or the Countdown. Theory, Culture & Society. February 1998, pp. 1-9

Finally, I echo ZornArmand's educated understanding of what is at play here.

Paulambery01 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the references. I grabbed the closest one at hand, the paper from Theory, Culture & Society, 1998. Odd that it would mention The Hypermodernity Club since it was published at least a year before the article claims the Club was founded. I found a lengthy discussion of the end of modernity and the year 2000, but no mention of THC (I didn't even notice the word "hypermodernity" used, although as Mangojuice points out the concept of hypermodernity itself seems notable). This is all beginning to wear rather thin. bikeable (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Widcombe Baptist Church

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

D-Bone

Delete - Appears to be a non-notable vanity entry, promoting Endless Online. Zelphar 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rpg Nation

"RPG server", so notable that it gets 1 new member a day. I wish I could say this article, complete with leet-speak and disparaging comments is a joke one, but I don't think it is. Strong Delete. Hynca-Hooley 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fendez notepad

non-notable software, possible advert RJFJR 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Haters

"Noise and conceptual art troupe". Hard to tell if the WP:MUSIC criteria are even applicable, never mind passed by this article. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rugs Galore

  • Comment Note that the article contains only a couple of sentences about Rugs Galore while the rest is about controversy re liquidation proceedings, McVeigh's involvement and a big photo of McVeigh. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A read of the blog of 2006BC, who created this article, makes it very clear that there is strong agenda and animosity towards McVeigh. Thanks heavens that vitriol hasn't found its way onto WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ya know, an actual nomination would've been nice here, rather than just leaping into the whole "making a vote" thing. You know that bit where many experienced AfDers generally refrain from doing the bolded "delete", and explain in detail why they've nominated someone's hard work for deletion? Yeah, I know it's not as common as it should be, or once was. But it's a nice dream ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a lot of hard work as this is a rehash of what was in the Dean McVeigh article plus a large verbatim legal extract. I reiterate, the company is non notable, the liquidation is of mild interest due to the removal of McVeigh but there should be no confusion that this is simply an attempt to circumvent the toning down of the McVeigh POV in other articles by editors with a vested interest. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could the above nomination please refer to provisions of WP:DEL. Upon closely reading this policy, this nomination appears likely not to even raise issues that could make the article capable of being deleted. Please respond or withdraw the afd which will otherwise be seen as disruption. DarrenRay 02:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Garglebutt has just made a comment so I'd love to see him actually explain why this article should be deleted other than by making a personal attack on me. Thanks. --2006BC 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - A big case about the conduct of Administrators in making deeds of company arrangement. I'm not a lawyer but this case is well known. Please don't let politics interfere with the making of the encyclopedia. AChan 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely per User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This company may well meet WP:CORP given the statement by the Victorian Minister about practices and that there are other references to them. However, in its current form, I think that it exists mainly as a way of putting up negative information about Dean McVeigh the liquidator of the Melbourne University Student Union. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC). Capitalistroadster 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My tip is to read the cases involved, not something I have done yet in full. Understand them first before saying whether not notable. Watching Garglebutt's other edits, I see he is very vengeful person against Darren Ray. His views should be discounted for this personal view. I think everyone should grow up. AChan 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is clearly an abuse of the article for deletion process and a very unfortunate act by its proposer. Notable company, notable liquidation, notable litigation about the liquidation. I would like to see those proposing its deletion actually state otherwise and participate in the discussion. These are reported cases from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal etc. They are important cases which were the subject of several media reports as well at the time aside from being published in relevant law reports which clearly demonstrate their notability in legal terms. There are very, very few cases of a company administrator ever being removed, as anyone familiar with the area of insolvency law will tell you, the threshold is so high that it is nearly impossible to cross. If you have issues with the content, change it but don't abuse this Afd process to pursue some sort of sad vendetta. I suggest the proposer read WP:POINT. DarrenRay 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely - as an alleged sockmaster/POV warrior; see User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets and RFA. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Achan. On the face of it, the company seems reasonably notable (but I haven't looked into the issues). However, the use of this article to continue a vendetta against Dean McVeigh is exceedingly inappropriate and troubling, not to mention immature, as is Garglebutt's apparent crusade against Darren and Ben. Yes, student pollies make my teeth itch too, but, c'mon. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Considered as a 'comment' rather than a strong opinion. No argument made here as to why the article should be kept (and "haven't looked into it") but some very welcome "stay calm" advice. As my Aussie friends would say, "it's all good". --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I take issue with the suggestion I am on a crusade. I have deliberately avoided the articles subject to POV warring to remove myself from such accusations, however I'm not going to allow this to carry over into new articles that have little merit in their own right. There are far more notable companies that are not adequately represent on WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write the article, although I did read it carefully before expressing a view here. DarrenRay 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
An afd is not meant to be a dispute about content. This is a bogus deletion proposal that bears no relationship with WP:DEL. DarrenRay 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: How is the information not relevant to Rugs Galore. It looks all about Rugs Galore. I don't get it. AChan 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, apparently notable; AfD is not appropriate venue to address content disputes. Monicasdude 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm giving less weight to this because I've never seen the editor in question vote to delete anything. Secondly, the article on Dean McVeigh was redirected by AFD consensus; if this article is an attempt to recreate McVeigh material by the backdoor it most certainly is an issue for AFD. Finally, "apparently notable" doesn't give me much confidence that the editor actually checked. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barely worthwhile, and only if it could be kept to a article on the title, but bad-faith editors wanting to make it 95% about McVeigh means its gotta go. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sorry I missed all the fun. But on a serious note, I would just like to say I thought this article would actually help resolve the issue about the missing information from Dean McVeigh's article after it was merged with Melbourne University student organisations. It wasn't appropriate to leave the information about Rugs Galore in there and I thought this was an ideal solution. If the article incorrectly states what happens in the Supreme Court cases, and I don't believe it does, why don't we have that discussion. Separating Dean McVeigh who was its Administrator and was central to what went wrong in its Administration does seem rather a strange objective. Anyway, see you at the Talk page and let's resolve it amicably. --2006BC 07:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely per User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ditto what Mark said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep - Well known Australian company, lots of reporting in the media. - Synapse 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. ditto. JSIN 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with supervision. Rugs Galore is certainly notable enough to warrant an article. That article should not, obviously, be used as a vehicle for thinly-disguised attacks on Dean McVeigh. At the time I write this, the article has been reduced to a stub, but still with more information about the liquidation than the actual company. So, some neutral observers would do well just to keep an eye on it. Stevage 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless all reference to McVeigh is removed. This smear campaign has gone on too long on Misplaced Pages. Harro5 10:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and per Ianbrown above. — Mar. 20, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Because the article as it was nominated is just a hate piece against McVeigh. Until you lot can trust yourselves to be neutral and not abuse Misplaced Pages's openness to attack a RL enemy, you're better off not mentioning him at all. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Jinian 22:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike Shaw (heart operation patient)

Yet another article by User:Torshaw - this time it's about his brother. If he's world famous as the article claims then there must be something wrong with this Google search. Delete Spondoolicks 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to American School in London, somewhat surprisingly given the course of things. I do wonder if those suggesting a merge are short of due diligence in determining whether this actually has any merit. Nevertheless, I'll simply apply the redirect. -Splash 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Misplaced Pages are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy for more information.

The Scroll

Delete-Non notable middle school paper PlasmaDragon

Delete- I go to the school right now, and the paper is not notable. Please notice that our school IP address is the one that has made all of these edits related to the school newspaper. Its probably some kid from the school paper self advertising. It's fine enough just to keep the content we have in American School in London and forget about The Scroll.--Urthogie 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; the Scroll is a notable middle school newspaper, as it wins awards and the editing staff are generally invited to a journalistic conference because of their hard work. Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers. I don't know what kind of personal vendetta you have against the scroll, but there is no need for you to do this. The Scroll wikipedia entry is not violating any wiki or school rules, and therefore your arguments are not valid. (Nakan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 (talk • contribs)

    • Seeing as how it has a very small circulation among only a few hundred people at one school, it is completely non notable for anyone who doesn't already know about it (i.e. who doesn't go to the school). Rules are irrelevant here: notability is. Therefore, my arguments are valid.-PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • except that the scroll also gets given to other newspapers in the US in exchange for theres. if the other newspaper staff wants to know more, they can come here.(David)

"KEEP IT" What on earth do you have against the scroll!?! The Scroll is a notable paper and scored first class in a recent rating. it also won best of show for middle school newspapers during an NSPA confrence. I agree with the above when it says that " Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers." He has a perfect point; why on earth would a FREE newspaper that contains NO advertisments and sole purpose is to inform the population of the american school about goings on, want to advertise. The Scroll is a fabulous example of students trying (and succeding) to be heard in their community. scroll editors spend at least 2 hours a week working on the paper plus many of their weekends trying to put out the best paper they can. if you think that the paper is "bad" then take it up with the editors, but keep this page open to all that want to read about it. When you say "some kid" you are talking about 14 students selected out of 400 to represent their fellow students and voice issue concerning them. Please, at least treat the editors with some respect. (David)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.46.9 (talk • contribs)

    • This isn't about the quality of the paper, or what we think about the editors. I just respectfully think that this newspaper is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. And I think that when Urthogie said "self-advertising", he meant "vanity." Vanity pages are prohibited on wikipedia, by policy. Ergo, this article, which is in violation of policy, should be deleted.-PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What is the NSPA? I couldn't find an article for it here. If the organization that gave the prize isn't notable enough for one, the paper who uses that prize as its sole reason for notability is not either.-PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    • http://www.studentpress.org/nspa/ Visit this for information on the NSPA. It is the largest student press orgainization in the US. I agree that if The Scroll isn't notable enough to have its own page, it should be included on the school page. Oh, and I can't figure out how to take the irrelivent notice off of the top of the page, but it should. This is not a page for slamming people. (Alex)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.71.9 (talk • contribs)

just a wuick thing about the NSPA, it is the sumber one Student newspaper prize giving organization in the world. when you apply for the New York Times (possibly the best paper on the planet) you are asked as one of the questions, weither or not you have ever recived 'any awards such as ones from the NSPA.'

Merge - not notable. merge into main entry for the school. -- infinity0 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We cannot; one of you have already deleted all mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page. There are other Middle School newspapers on this website; maybe you should target them instead of us. Or perhaps, you should just grow up and stop acting like an eight year old. (Nakan).

It'd be much easier to target them if personal attacks and baseless accusations weren't made everytime we voted someones vanity page for deletion. Also, please note that this IP that just posted is from the American school in london. It's incredibly immature to go creating vanity pages just to see yourself on an article.--Urthogie 10:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Ben, may i say one thing. this is not a vanity page. this page was not created with the purpose to promore ourselfs. we simply wanted people to know more about our paper. if you have an issue with, dare i say it, making information public and availible, i suggest you stop waundering around wiki.

Excuse me, dear sir, but direct me to the place where it says my name in glorious letters on the Scroll wikipedia page? This is about the Scroll itself. A concious decision was made when the page was made; we didn't use any names because we thought than we might avoid the accusation that you are making right now. This is not an attempt to make us feel better, but to inform other people from other schools about the Scroll. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia, where every term can be defined. The Scroll is just as worthy to hold a single page of explanation as any other newspaper. There are some pages on Misplaced Pages which take up a lot more room and serve a lot less purpose than this one. Perhaps you should dedicate your noble efforts to those sites more worthy of your exaulted attention. (Nakan)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.24.83 (talk • contribs)

You said it perfeclty. This is an encyclopedia. Key word, encyclopedia. And some things aren't notable.--Urthogie 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware I could say something perfeclty. Look, if this is some sort of vendetta against all middle school and high school newspapers, then I could accept it. But its not; for some reason you have singled out your own middle school newspaper for abuse. Why don't you go after the Trojan Times? They are a middle school newspaper. They have virtually the same layout as us. Go and flag them for deletion, just let us have our few kilobytes of space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 (talk • contribs)

  • To add to the above's point, the Trojan Times is much more of a vanity page than the Scroll's. The site clearly says,"Pierce Middle School's "Trojan Times" is widely regarded as one of – if not the – best middle school newspaper in the United States." The Scroll page doesn't have opinionated comments such as the one above. I believe that the page is enlightening other Middle School papers to that fact that there is a MS paper in the American School in London. I don't think it was a vanity page at all. I don't believe that it was created for this reason. I appreciate your opinions, Urthogie, but your points aren't convincing me. I didn't see anything on the Scroll page that caused me to believe what you said. (Alex)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.202 (talk • contribs)
I am not just picking on the Scroll; if I see another non notable middle school paper, I will recommend it for deletion, but yours is the only one I have chanced upon. If I see a page that "take up a lot more room and serve a lot less purpose than this one" I shall recommend it for deletion as well. You are welcome to go ahead an recommend the pages you refer to for deletion (you might want to register an account first). However, the fact that there are worse articles does not mean that this one is automatically considered of sufficient notability for wikipedia. The page itself does not provide much information that cannot be determined just by looking at a copy of the paper (e.g. the contents and sections of the paper) nor any information that would interest people who have not read a copy. This is because, and I mean no offense, the Scroll is pretty much an average middle school paper. It has interviewed a few moderately famous people, and has won a minor award, but on the whole it is not very distinguished from any of the other tens of thousands of middle school papers out there. It has not been the topic of any sort of news that extends beyond the school, nor does its readership extend beyond the school (and perhaps a few people in the schools that you send a copy of your paper to). Beyond the few people that already know about your paper, nobody cares about it. Sorry. It's a bit harsh, but it's a bit true. Nobody cares. Your paper is not famous or unusual enough to warrant an article on wikipedia. If you want other schools to have a place online where they can learn more about the Scroll, I recommend setting up a website or something and printing the URL in the paper. But wikipedia is not a place for your webpage and is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is not the place for this kind of thing. And if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the rules, policies and community of wikipedia itself.-PlasmaDragon 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As i said before, the awards it wins are not minor ("and has won a minor award," ) they are the best that is avaible for any student newpaper. "Beyond the few people that already know about your paper, nobody cares about it. Sorry. It's a bit harsh, but it's a bit true. " Mr ben it would seem that you think that your veiws represtent the rest of the world. Sir, they do not. it seems to me like you think that you are the ultimate wiki man and you alone have to power to say what is right and what is wrong, what people should read, what people should not. sounds a tad bit like Hitler to me.

  • PlasmaDragon, you've given a really good argument. Go ahead and delete the page, because no matter what we do, the Scroll (and I say this in the most respectful way I can) isn't important enough to be in this online encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.202 (talk • contribs)

Well, good sir plasmadragon (nice name, by the way, extraordinarily manly), you have outdone yourself once again. In suggesting that this is the first middle school paper that you "chanced" upon, also serves to suggest that you did not attempt to merely look through wiki's search engine. The first item that you find when searching "middle school newspaper" is "the trojan times," which is nearly identical to the page that the Scroll has set up. Why don't you go and flag their site for deletion, and dash their humble dreams upon the rocks? You claim that the Scroll is a "average middle school newspaper," which has won "a minor award." Well, that really depends on your definition of minor. My definition of minor is something that is not important; perhaps something that no-one notices. Well, it would be difficult for someone not to notice the Scroll if it was announced in front of 60,000 people who all heard about it win this "minor" award (an award you obviously know nothing about, and you merely assume that it a minor one). You are correct in claiming that what you wrote is a "bit true," but incorrect in claiming that no-one cares. Four hundred people, plus 200 faculty members all care. The award board who gave us our "minor" award cares. The dozens of schools we have sent the Scroll to all care. No sir, you are not picking an argument with the Scroll, but rather with all middle school newspapers; you are suggesting that even a newspaper that wins one of the most prestigious awards available to it is still worthless, minor, and not even deserving of a wikipedia entry, is suggesting that no middle school newspapers amount to anything. You see, sir, all middle school newspapers have the same limits; they do not really reach a large audience past their schools, none of them are particularly famous or unusual, and as you say, they have no worth. Indeed, while I might have a problem with Misplaced Pages itself, than you, dear sir, have a problem with all middle school newspapers, not just this one. And if that is a battle you are willing to take, than good luck to you, sir. (Nakan)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 (talk • contribs)

being smug won't win you any support. I suggest you nominate the trojan times for deletion if you don't like it existing.--Urthogie 21:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have listed Trojan Times for deletion too. I hope that makes you happy. As for a "minor" award, well, it's not exactly the Pulitzer, now is it? In front of 60,000 people? Was it given to you in a stadium? Anyway, since the article about the scroll claims a circulation of 1,000, but you say that only 600 people "care", I must confess that I regard any numbers you give me with suspicion. Oh, and 600/6,000,000,000 (the number of people who care divided by the population of the earth) = 0.0000001. So, on a global scale (this is, after all, the world wide web), virtually nobody cares. And yes, I have a problem with all middle school papers, and it is a battle that I am "willing to take." I daresay I am not alone.-PlasmaDragon 21:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But this does not end at the merger. There was a mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page, but it was deleted, by one of the posters above. The Scroll received the award in front of 60,000 people, all of whom were invited for their contribution to the school newspaper community. And your little division problem hardly strikes fear into my heart; seeing as only a billion or so have internet acess, your division problem works against you; the most any internet site can garner is 1/6 of the world population. You claim that the award that the Scroll wins (most every year), is "not the pulitzer." Well, of course it isn't. The Scroll cannot win a pulitzer, because that prize is not available to them. However, the Scroll can compete against schools from other continents in an attempt to win the prize that you are slamming. You obviously have not done very much research on the very thing that you say does not matter. And saying that no-one cares is incorrect; apparently you care quite a lot, otherwise maybe you wouldn't continue in this persecution of your own school newspaper. You might be claiming that the Scroll, and other pages like it are wasting space on the Wiki server; perhaps you don't realize that this page that you have created takes up at least double the space that our small, supposedly insignifigant page takes up. At the beginning of this argument, you claimed that you "chanced upon" this page. I find this highly unlikely; we put this page up nary a week ago, and you flagged it for deletion less than two days afterwords. Someone told you about this page, and you took as an oppurtunity to continue your personal vendetta against the Scroll. The Scroll is as notable as a Middle School newspaper can be, and maybe you should just accept that and stop whining about Middle School newspapers. Just allow the few of MS newspapers that are trying to expand into the internet to do so, instead of hindering them at every step. (Nakan)

Listen, Nakan (assuming thats your name). Lemme make the following clear:
  1. Whoever removed the text from the article was in error. It would be restored(without the link) if/when this article is deleted.
  2. Yes, this discussion has taken more time than the making of The Scroll, unfortunately. However, if you think of it in the larger context, this sets a precedent and makes it easier to delete other non-notables in the future.

Peace, --Urthogie 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. Now I am part of some sort of conspiracy that is carrying out a vendetta against your paper and only your paper. Give me a break. Anyway, I will prove how much I don't care by not posting here again. When someone starts spouting conspiracy theories, meaningful dialog has come to an end.-PlasmaDragon 17:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Urthogie, do not try and make out as if the removal of the text from the American School in London page was an error; you were the one who deleted it. And why do you have any doubts about what my name is? You could look me up in the directories right now, if you so desired (assuming you go to my school, which I think is very possible, Mr. Greenberg). I think that my arguements above speak for themselves, and if you have any desire to dislodge them you must give proof that the Scroll is non-notable. As I said above, the Scroll is as notable as it could possibly be; it cannot go beyond where it currently is. Just let us be, for the love of God; this is your school as well, have a little spirit. (Nakan)

As you can see, the account that did it was the School account(

Articles for your journalism class to read

After you're done reading these, you'll see that the wiki-world is not a place for self promotion. In fact, its discouraged that people write about things they're involved in, or about themselves-- creates bias. --Urthogie 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We are NOT self promoting; we are merely presenting information. There is no benefit that we can gain by self promoting, no amount of money, or cars, or even women. You make the same point again and again; please, spare me your stupidity.

User:DavidMax has stated that this is promotion for the paper. And yes, it is promotion to be prejudiced in favor of an organization you are a member of.--Urthogie 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is David Max? (Nakan)

Plasmadragon, you merely prove that you cannot let this go by checking this page every few hours, and posting everytime I respond. I will repeat my point: the Scroll is a notable MS paper. It has every right to be here. You are not part of this "conspiracy," but urthogie is. He went on to the ASL page and took out all references to the scroll. And you have not adressed how you found this page; surely it was not by an honest search?

He found this page because it was marked by a {{prod}} template. It doesn't help your case when you make uninformed accusations. By the way, who ever heard of a one man conspiracy?--Urthogie 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think the person who proposed this page for deletion was? This is not a conspiracy, and stop calling it one. the fact remains that someone (and according to the history of the page, Urthogie) deleted all references to the Scroll on the ASL wiki page. Please, just let this one go! What personal motivation do you have for keeping this fight going? The newspaper is notable. The newspaper deserves a wiki page as much as any other. And repeatedly claiming that the newspaper is non-notable and has won a minor award (an award it wins most every year), will not win you any respect. Just let this one go; prove yourself the bigger man and walk away. And Urthogie, if you do not go to this school you do not know if the Scroll is notable or not; you have never seen an issue.

I'm done arguing with you, just like Plasma. Your arguments aren't even grounded in truth-- I recently reverted back whoever removed The Scroll from the article. Peace, --Urthogie 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Urthogie, did you not claim at the beginning of this argument that you go to the school right now? So wouldn;t it be easy for you to delete the Scroll information? You can say that you are done with this, but you are not. This is not an argument about me or my aggressive posting habits, but about the Scroll. And merely claiming again and again that the Scroll is not notable (when in fact it certainly is, as proved above) does not automatically make you the victor. (Nakan)

Misplaced Pages has a policy called Assume good faith. You're not following it, and as a result you lend yourself to false assumptions. Like I said, I'm done arguing with you because of your immature approach-- I am confident that the administrator reviewing this discussion will opt for deletion. Good day,--Urthogie 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, woe is me! I'm not the wikipedia policy. Oh no! If I were you, I'd refuse to talk to me, because I have commited a most heinous crime! Go on, walk away, with your tail between your legs, refuse to speak to me. I am not considering you in good faith, because to date you have not given a plausible why the Scroll should be deleted. The Scroll has won many major awards and has achieved the highest possible acclaim that a MS newspaper can achieve. If you really think that it is not worth a few kilobytes of wiki's server, than you are a cold, black hearted man. Walking away does make you a bigger man, but you have not finished the argument; you have not rebuffed any of my points. (Nakan)

  • Well, I know I promised not to post here again, but I noticed some inaccuracies in your statements, Nakan, that I simply could not stop myself from correcting. First of all, according to the article, the Scroll has not won many awards. It has won one, or at the most two. One of those is the NSPA first class ranking. According to this webpage (you'll have to scroll--no pun intended--down a lot, or better yet, just do edit->find for the word "class"), first class is the second best ranking given (the best is All-American, if you must know). Nor is it given exclusively: on the Internet, a cursory search revealed many other publications that had received a first class ranking too. If first class ranking alone were criteria for a wikipedia article, half of the wikipedia server hard drives would be clogged with a million entries of school publications. I exaggerate, of course, but do you see my point?

Then there is the claim that the Scroll was awarded best in show. That is not true. It was given third place best in show for junior high papers. So, as we can see, the scroll has won one minor award (if the NSPA rankings are so important, why does the NSPA barely acknowledge their existance?), and almost won one other minor award (I doubt that the junior high papers were the highlight of the evening). Anyway, even if it had achieved the highest possible praise that could be given to a junior high paper, it would still not be notable. There are some things that, due to their limited geographical relevance, are simply not notable enough for wikipedia. For example, if I put together the best possible computer, overclocked it with liquid nitrogen, and got the highest 3D Mark score in the world, would my computer deserve an article on wikipedia? No, because it would still just be my computer that only I, my friends, my family, and possibly my neighbors would care about. It would do pretty much anything any other mid- to high-end computer purchased in the last year or two could do, except at a few more frames per second. The Scroll is the same way. It has nothing that any other middle school paper wouldn't also have (photos, editorials), and it isn't even the best. There is nothing notable about it. Who, outside of your school, do you think would see this wiki page and say "Wow! A first class middle school paper! With photos!"?

Maybe if your paper won 10 "All-American" rankings and was inducted into the Hall of Fame, as described on the NSPA webpage, it would be notable. Or maybe if there was some sort of landmark 1st Amendment court case involving your paper, it would be notable. But until then, it is not. And we cannot give you a few kilobytes. If we gave a few kilobytes to every middle school paper that won a minor award, then, as I touched upon earlier, there would be an overwhelming glut of articles on papers that few would care about, and wikipedia would be seen as only a massive jungle of vanity pages, from which the rare flowers of good articles on notable topics would be all but impossible to locate and extract.

In conclusion: the Scroll is not nearly as notable as its staff would have you believe, there is nothing about it that makes it sufficiently notable, and this article should therefore be deleted. --PlasmaDragon 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I do not know when I made a big mistake and made this personal, but reading back over this argument, I realize that I have looked like an idiot. I have been attacking the personal lives of people I don't even know, and making claims that are not grounded in fact. While I still disagree about the notability of the Scroll, I am not going to argue any more. My above arguments have ruined my credibilty, and I simply did not acknowledge the links that you sent me. You have tried to make this more a true argument, but everytime you did I attempted to call you out on personal details that I do not know for certain. My arguments have reflected poorly upon the whole Scroll staff, and I am truly sorry. I realize now that the Scroll wikipedia entry has no chance of surviving; perhaps if I had argued better, with your level of research, then it would have been different, but as it stands now, the Scroll wiki entry has no hope. I am throwing in the towel, and I can only hope that this final apology will return some dignity in the eyes of my peers and fellow wikipedia users.

I am truly sorry, (Nakan)

It's all good -- we're here to judge articles, not people.--Urthogie 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

James tenyenhuis

A college student with a piecemeal claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Grandmasterka 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was MOVE to Misplaced Pages namespace. The article is in the wrong namespace but otherwise I don't see much problems with it. JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedia article

Self-referential in the article namespace, irrelevant given WP:YFA and others Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Well meaning initiative, but this shouldnt be in the article namespace. Could proberbly be userfied. --Ezeu 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
rrelevant given WP:YFA" and "Could proberbly be userfied" are examples of the techspeak that motivated me to create the page in the first place. The process for creating my first wiki articles was tortuous at best (though thanks go to Dismas for his/her help). As an online teacher, I think you need to have a short but inclusive article to get people started. I could not find one. So, I merely tried to create instructions with the first-timer in mind. User:Grapeman
I agree. Misplaced Pages jargon is a problem. Parhaps you can edit Misplaced Pages:Your first article to make it better. --Ezeu 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my point. The article in itself is worthwhile; it is just not in the right namespace. Batmanand | Talk 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what in the right namespace is referring to, but I changed the subheading and made it less repetitive. Hopefully that addresses Batmanand's point. As for editing Misplaced Pages:Your first article, I wouldn't know where to begin! Moreover, Wiki probably needs an extensive resource like that; I just think it needs something else, too... something a lot simpler and more introductory. Once people have something that's up and running according to minimum specs, then I believe they'll use the details and multi-links in Misplaced Pages:Your first article. --Cheers, Grapeman
Grapeman, there is a glossary at Misplaced Pages:Glossary, you may find it of some use. --Ezeu 02:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas J. Hopper

Non-notable professor. Article was nominated for deletion previously (see here), but the debate was largely about academics in general, and was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics and no consensus was reached. Nicholas Hopper is a promising young crypto researcher, and an assistant prof (not tenured) at UMN, and has about 10 technical papers of varying quality; the best has about 50 citations, which makes it a good paper, but not an especially important one. Not much more could be added to this article, apart from a CV-style list of papers. As nominator, I abstain; I'm relisting this because it didn't get consensus (or quality discussion) last time. Mangojuice 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Delete. Until the notability criteria for academics are sorted out, I would consider there to be no policy on them; as such, I am following my own instinct, which says delete in this case. Batmanand | Talk 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete per Batmanand Bucketsofg 22:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Assistant professor, PhD two years ago. I find less than a dozen published papers. Doesn't appear that he's "more well known and more published than an average college professor." He looks more like he is an average college professor. Fan1967 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G1/A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Clayton "The Clan Man" Varnon

Unless anyone can prove otherwise, I think this is made up. IronGiant 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Hoax. --Ezeu 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination WP:POINT. Ezeu 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times

Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#John Bambenek where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- Alpha269 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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