🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_28
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 27 October 29 >

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

The result was Speedy close, we're definitely not going to delete an article on one of the most core topics in an encyclopaedia. User appears to be trolling. --Rory096 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

[edit]

Poorly written, widely scattered article. Just about any information in this article can be found in more specific topics. But not here sweeheart (I wanna have some sexual fun...) --Railer 295 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pez Community

[edit]

Does not assert notability per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 2,301,278 isn't promising. Prodded and deprodded. Melchoir 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Neopet. Proto::type 11:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petpet

[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion in April 2005 (1st AfD here). The reasons provided then for keeping this blatant vanispamscruftisement are far from sound. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Húsönd 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Dixon

[edit]

Youth player who hasn't played a professional game and thus fails WP:BIO. For the same reason I'm nominating Tomáš Pekhart. There's a number of other Spurs players on Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves & Academy that haven't played a professional game, but they appear to be professionals and thus qualify under "squad players of a professional team" rule. HornetMike 00:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is he, though? If Terry Dixon was to tear a ligament or something and his career ended it wouldn't get on the BBC Football website. Sol Davis' stroke did, and so does injury/transfer news of other players lower down the football pyramid. HornetMike 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If such an unfortunate incident were to happen, then Dixon would gain notability of being a player lost to the game. I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that Kiyan Prince should be deleted because he had played no professional games. Dixon has already garnered national media attention for being a footballer, which in my opinion is enough. aLii 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a teenager with no first team experience suffers a career ending injury, they don't gain "notability as a player lost to the game", they just become some bloke who nobody's ever heard of who nearly became a professional footballer once upon a time. Kiyan Prince is a completely different case. His notability has nothing to do with football, he is notable for being a murder victim whose case received lots of media coverage, the fact that he happened to be a QPR youth team footballer is incidental. ChrisTheDude 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, homemade film, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig and Nick Fat Ass Spies

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable film. [Check Google hits] shows two results. "Fat Ass Spies" gives 75 results, most of which are, er, not relevant. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Global University School of Medicine

[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited school. Claims to be based in Latin America with headquarters in Ohio. I get 119 yahoo hits. Arbusto 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be voting keep based on the hope that a more balanced view will be presented. As you said it is "advertising quite heavily and untruthfully", but that's not really a reason to keep. Arbusto 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. Leuko 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it presents an accurate view because I was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status.[4] I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to let people know it isn't accredited. Arbusto 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is notable enough to be on the list of unaccredited institutions, then isn't it notable enough to have a blue link instead of a red link? Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And you feel that makes his/her opinion less worthy? If you are worried that it is me agreeing with myself, I invite you to do a checkuser. Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Within the first sentence, the word "unaccredited" is used - I fail to see how someone could be confused. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it does claim to be accredited by the World Association of Universities and Colleges [5], but this is not a recognized accrediting body, since it seems the only barrier to accreditation is a $1,000 check. As for notability, it is described as a "top Caribbean medical school" by educationandjobsonline.com [6]. (I am not arguing that this is a WP:RS, just that it has been the topic of independent press). If this is the same American Global University formerly of Wyoming, then use of its degrees are banned in at least 3 states (Oregon [7], Texas [8], and Maine [9]). Leuko 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elfdust

[edit]

Seemingly self-promotional, article does not assert any importance of this game. Guy claims on the talk page that this game was mentioned in Massive Online Gaming but that is just one mention, and not even cited in the article... I am not convinced this meets WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and so on. --W.marsh 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The guy who created this, and the only person to contribute content to it, never contributed anything to Wikipedia but this article. Once he got rid of the PROD he never came back to WP. So if his goal was to improve his contribs list... he didn't do a very good job of it. Seems more likely he got his plug in then wanted nothing more to do with our project. --W.marsh 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by NCurse. MER-C 08:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrest in the Midwest

[edit]

An album that will be released by a zine. (Closing admin: Procedural listing; count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Alan Glennon

[edit]

The entry is about me, and I would like to propose its deletion. Ucsbalan 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Note: this article has has a previous AfD discussion, which can be found here.[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARM TV

[edit]

nn website about arm wrestling videos, makes no claim to notability, no alexa rating Tony fanta 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour EP

[edit]

EP with 200 copies sold. Delete. BanyanTree 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - hopelessly non-notable. Light on context, too. MER-C 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take an unpopular view on these things - a CD sold only on tour dates has equivalent status to a t-shirt or tour programme rather than the status of an ordinary CD release. Therefore, it shouldn't have an article of its own so it's a delete from me. Ac@osr 09:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this album is part of his discography. plus all his other ep/albums have their own section... i don't think it should be removed Nyago
  • title has been changed to US Tour EP 2005 (Jens Lekman)
  • Delete: Like a t-shirt, yes, but the arguments for keep have been begging the question. A document of a tour is assessed the same way any other disk is: sales, distribution, airplay, significance in the oeuvre. This fails those guidelines. Geogre 13:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, although there is dispute, the position at present is that if an artist is notable, their albums are notable but, even if this was a full length disc, it is still effectively tour merchandise because of the way in which it has been sold regardless of the numbers involved. A live album released commercially as a document of a tour is a different barrel of onions. Ac@osr 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i still don't see why limited edition stuff shouldn't be included. what if it was from a small cd-r label? this isn't really a live release by the way. nyago
    • I'm aware that it isn't a live release but it appears only to have been sold at live shows. If a small CDR label was to issue something by a notable artist (an increasingly common event), and it was sold commercially throught the usual channels, I would be inclined in principle to support it, although the low numbers associated with CDR labels would put me off. But this is really just a tour souvenier rather than a proper release. Obviously it could be added to a discography or some such but I can't support an entry of its own. Ac@osr 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • i wouldn't really consider this to be "just some souvenier", though. i think it's more than that. would it make any difference if it had a more interesting title? i think that if an artist is notable enough, it should be included. it shouldn't matter what their albums are called or how many copies it may or may not have, as long it's somewhat useful for someone. Nyago 14:39, 01 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's nothing significance about this record, it could just be mentioned as a list item in some other article. There's nothing here to warrant a standalone page. Delete. Ned Wilbury 15:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's rather interesting that people compare this to a t-shirt. It's not the same at all, really, for any number of reasons, and to delete this would, again, mess up the entire Lekman discography. We have a workable standard on albums and EPs, let's keep it that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. BTW its been moved to US Tour EP 2005 (Jens Lekman). BlueValour 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.starfleet.rpg

[edit]

nn scifi cruft newsgroup/website, no assertion of notability, alexa ranking of 2,604,774 Tony fanta 03:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used plenty of evidence that it is nn, I just added cruft because it's the truth, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. Tony fanta 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use cruft as a rationale in the future. Mine was a friendly warning. Irking others intentionaly is often framed as trolling and people have been blocked for it. --Cat out 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, one article in the Orlando Business Journal doesn't confer notability. NawlinWiki 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bored at work

[edit]

nn link repository, has a small write up in some regional magazine, but that doesn't establish much notability, since it would fail WP:WEB, alexa of 394,238 Tony fanta 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BreakmanX.com

[edit]

nn website, no alexa rating, violates WP:VAIN and fails WP:WEB, gets about 30 unique google hits Tony fanta 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, with no reduplicated witticism. DS 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petpetpet

[edit]

Non-notable outside of Neopets. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petpet (2 nomination) -Amarkov babble 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they never actually CREATE petpetpetpets... -Amarkov babble 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Brago-Mitchell

[edit]

A photographer and creator of digital art whose only specified claim to notability is having taken and been credited for "all the pictures for a Japanese-language gardening book of plants cultivated in Japan, published by Shobunsha, Tokyo, 1975". If this is 晶文社, it's a prestigious publisher; but a search in the online catalogues of the Japanese national library and the Tokyo central library for books by "Brago" (or either of its likeliest katakana forms, ブラゴ or ブラーゴ), which I infer was her surname at the time, shows nothing. Googling for this person brings up a lot of stuff, but all of it seems to be either (a) Wikipedia or its commercial scrapes or (b) written by her or promotional or both. Thus what is written here is not verifiable. In addition, I see no evidence that she comes anywhere near satisfying the "notability" requirements for a photographer, viz Published ... photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work; this of course is not damning in itself but I also see no alternative factor here for notability. Thus she also seems non-notable. -- Hoary 04:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Boy (rapper)

[edit]

Contested prod. Not notable, no relevant google hits (most are misspellings of Cheech Marin). Khatru2 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Michael Snow 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M. Benis

[edit]

This nomination also includes the related article NPA personality theory.

I am a scientist by profession, and while psychology is not my field of study, I do have experience in identifying pseudoscience and self-promotion. I am suspicious that the articles on Anthony M. Benis and NPA personality theory (a personality theory invented by Anthony M. Benis) do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and may also be vanity articles to some degree. I believe these articles have been cleverly crafted to make their subjects appear notable when in reality they are not. My reasons are as follows:

  1. Both articles have been extensively edited by ABenis (talk ·  contribs), whom I presume to be Anthony M. Benis himself. In the case of NPA personality theory, User:ABenis made the vast majority of edits.
  2. The Anthony M. Benis article is extremely long, yet nothing in it shows why he is any more notable than other researchers in his field except the single paragraph mentoning his work with NPA personality theory. The awards he is listed as receiving are not major awards in terms of Wikipedia notability; for example, there is not and probably never will be an article for the AICE Regional Award or a Category:AICE Regional Award recipients. Contrary to what the article claims, there is also nothing particularly notable about his being a member of Sigma Xi, which has 62 000 members and is open (by invitation) to anyone who demonstrates mere "aptitude" for research. At any rate, none of these awards appear to be for his development of NPA personality theory.
  3. NPA personality theory is not widely known in psychology. As far as I can tell, there is only a single unique publication about NPA theory: Toward Self and Sanity by Anthony M. Benis, a book published in 1985 and now long out-of-print. The text was republished in a little-known speculative science journal in 1990. That journal is not a psychology journal, and tends to publish speculative articles on fringe science topics such as warp drive.
  4. NPA personality theory is not widely known in general. I performed a Google search for "NPA personality" and the first hundred or so results are almost all Wikipedia mirrors, link directories, or sites operated by Benis himself. Searches on online bookseller sites yield no books on the NPA personality theory. (Compare this with over 30 results for "Rorschach" and thousands for "Myers-Briggs".)
  5. Benis himself heavily promotes the NPA Wikipedia article on his websites, as if it lends credibility to the theory. If his theory were credible or notable, he would have also or instead listed references to scientific journals, popular science articles, and established print encyclopedias. I believe he promotes the Wikipedia article because it's (a) practically the only in-depth discussion of NPA to be found on the Internet but not on one of his own websites, and (b) largely authored, or at least partially controllable, by him.
  6. To my understanding, the NPA personality theory is pseudoscience and quackery. While that alone doesn't necessarily disqualify it from being on Wikipedia (after all, we have articles on phrenology and intelligent design), it should be a factor we consider when deciding Benis and the other authors' motivation for including these articles on Wikipedia.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong about these points; the best evidence to establish notability would be if someone could find a citation index which proves that Benis's work is widely cited in the scientific literature. However, given that his only book on the topic is long out-of-print, and that there doesn't appear to be any other research psychologists writing about NPA, I suspect that no such evidence will be forthcoming. —Psychonaut 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: Since listing this AfD I have expanded the proposed policy guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics). While this page is simply a proposal and not official Wikipedia policy, anyone who consults this guideline in reference to this AfD should be aware of this potential conflict of interest. —Psychonaut 19:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks to me like a surprisingly successful spam/astroturfing campaign. I doubt you'll get NPA personality theory deleted, as it is - amazingly - currently listed as a Good Article. However, it clearly should be delisted, as it is a pile of pseudoscientific nonsense and the article provides no indication of its lack of scientific acceptance, or any critical commentary whatsoever. Overall, I'd say delete Benis, keep NPA but give it a good trim and add some external criticism. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your suggestion is that there is no external criticism of NPA. Geneticists and psychologists are too busy doing real work to address this kind of pseudoscientific nonsense. I ask you to reconsider your vote in light of this. —Psychonaut 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if nobody minds deleting a current GA, I thoroughly agree it should be thrown out. I would've expected more contention on that (compare the fact that nobody can get a school deleted no matter how pathetic its article is). Opabinia regalis 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means do so, after looking over the pages talk page (which is about one of the most ridiculous things I've seen here) it certainly doesn't deserve a GA standing. --The Way 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I meant thrown out as in deleted, but I just delisted it from GA status. I didn't even see the talk page; what a bunch of nonsense. Opabinia regalis 07:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sole publication supporting the theory seems to be Benis, Anthony M. and Jacob H. Rand (1986). "A model of human personality [or "human personality traits" according to this] based on Mendelian genetics" (abstract). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication 86-5, 124. A search in Google for benis rand "human personality based" "mendelian genetics" gets just two hits, for en:WP and fr:WP; one for benis rand "human personality traits based" "mendelian genetics" gets none. I therefore infer that this model of personality sank without trace, other than in the eyes of its proponents. Incidentally, a site about this captions a photo of a gorilla baring its teeth as "smiling", a claim that is debatable, and offers a list of "NPA Sites" among which is the en:WP article. -- Hoary 05:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A model of human personality based on Mendelian genetics" isn't a peer-review publication; it's just an abstract (that is, probably just a paragraph). Moreover there is no Proceedings of the AAAS listed on the AAAS's list of publications. —Psychonaut 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sit corrected. (And this NPA article smells worse and worse.) -- Hoary 06:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further: there is also no Proceedings of the AAAS listed where I would expect it: on p.10586 [yes, really, over ten thousand] of the 43rd edition (2005) of Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. I thought of various ways in which it could be alphabetized ("AAAS" versus "American" etc, with and without "the"), but no it's not in any of them. -- Hoary 07:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Best argued case I've seen for deletion and I can't really add anything. In regards to NPA being a 'good article,' that doesn't mean it can't be deleted, especially if it's primarily the work of Benis himself. --The Way 05:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment Also, it's no wonder NPA is a featured article; of course the person who invented the theory can make a good, highly detailed article like the NPA one. Looking at the article's history it was quickly written virtually by Benis alone. This is clearly self-promotion of a non-notable fringe theory by the creator of that theory. --The Way 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment on NPA Take a look in the discussion page of the NPA article. It's extraordinary. Here's just one comment, slightly abridged and with emphases added: The article NPA personality theory adds honor to the Wikipedia. .... / The nature of this subject is speculative, almost akin to subatomic particles, we can only approximate and see to it that all the observed facts of the subject are consistent with the theory. As such, the NPA theory is analogous to Darwin's Theory of Evolution in that it frames the complete context of knowledge of biologic beings in a new and startling and even dazzling light. / .... The importance of this article is of the top designation. There is no subject in the Wikipedia that could be of more importance to address than the human personality. / We are devoting every energy to furthering knowledge of this theory. Right. One such energy seems to be the unscrupulous and unintentionally risible use of Wikipedia. -- Hoary 05:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right it's in the relevant Personality Test article... and guess who put it there? Benis, and the other person Dkatana (possibly a sockpuppet?) who were the two responsible for the NPA article added all the NPA info to the personality test article as well, I'm guessing the same is true for the Karen Horney article. These two individuals seem to be using Wikipedia as a means to gain legitimacy by cleverly inserting the theory into legitimate articles. --The Way 06:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, might be worth mentioning that Stammer, the user posting a comment above, has a five day old account and his only contributions are to anothe psychology article that appears to be an AfD as well. --The Way 06:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My article Personality Forge is actually about Artificial Intelligence, more specifically about chatterbots. You are all welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion about its deletion. Stammer 07:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was User:ABenis who added (spammed?) the information on NPA into the personality test and Karen Horney articles. (Check his contributions.) And again, there doesn't seem to be any external criticism or review of NPA, so it's not possible to add that information to the NPA article. —Psychonaut 06:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he also added some content to Narcissism, Narcissism (psychology) (it is a separate article), and Narcissistic personality disorder. By the way, I'm pretty sure that D-Katana is not a sockpuppet, just someone who supports his theory. —Cswrye 06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added the information to Narcissism myself while reworking the article, on the grounds that NPA theory makes a particular and distinct use of the term Narcissism. As far as I can tell, all User:ABenis added to Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissistic personality disorder was minor copyediting unrelated to NPA theory. --Zeraeph 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would strongly recommend taking a look at the talk page of NPA personality theory when making decisions about it. There was a rather lengthy discussion about how to assess its importance on the WikiProject Psychology assessment scale, and this discussion included some points about the merits of the author and the theory. I think that I said most of what I can say there, although I will point out that there is a rather clear conflict of interest with the article. One editor in particular expressed rather directly that his or her intention was to use Wikipedia to promote the theory, as evidenced by this statement: "And, in turn, Wikipedia has the honor of the recognition for championing the theory before any other group of scholars took it on for further development and propagation." This is a definite misuse of Wikipedia, although it's not necessarily a reason to delete the article if it has other legs to stand on. In its favor, the theory is verifiable since there are a couple of publications about it, and while they may be of questionable reliability, they do seem to qualify as reliable sources. However, I don't think that there is much to establish its notability. Benis's publication is over twenty years old, and yet, this theory is virtually unknown in the psychology community. In fact, I suspect that few personality psychologists would have heard of this theory. While I think that the article does satisfy the basic requirements of Wikipedia, it is on the fringes of psychology, and Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to try to establish any credibility for it. —Cswrye 06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having looked over the talk page, it appears the only people arguing strongly in favor of the article and giving the article a high rating are Benis himself and one or two individuals that seem very closely linked to Benis as they all seem to edit the very same articles, students perhaps? Especially User:D-Katana. It's a hijack! --The Way 06:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as NPA is claimed to be a method-cum-theory of personality assessment and the two-volume Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment, ed. R Fernández-Ballesteros (Sage, 2003) is bristling with articles on these, we can expect to see it there -- if it's regarded as amounting to anything. It's not there. And neither NPA nor Benis appears within the capacious indexes of either of the large works titled Encyclopedia of Psychology -- four volumes ed. R J Corsini (2nd ed, Wiley, 1994) or eight volumes ed. A E Kazdin (APA/OUP, 2000). NPA seems to be of negligible significance to psychometrics or psychology. Incidentally, I wonder how many academic libraries that aren't also copyright libraries have a non-donated copy of Benis's book: the Library of Congress does have a copy but Copac doesn't show a single copy (paid for by anyone), suggesting that no British university library has one. -- Hoary 07:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as vanispamcruftisement. Very good catch, Psychonaut. This is precisely one of the things that troubles me about Wikipedia even more than reg'lar spam -- bogus knowledge slipped in between the cracks and woven into the article matrix. Yikes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've followed the above discussion, looked up the references and can add nothing beyond mt admiration for the way this deletion has been proposed. Emeraude 10:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes even a Good Article can be bad. Delete both articles because of the inability to find independent verification for the content of either (let alone any sign of significance as perceived by more than a handful of professional, qualified, mainstream psychologists). -- Hoary 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nominator, Emeraude, Dhartung and Hoary have summed up my thoughts on the article between them. Also, kudos to the nominator for, as The Way mentioned, probably the best argued AfD I too have ever seen. Psychonaut seems to know his/her Wikipolicies :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a formally published theory by an impeccably qualified academic and MD, who, if you look at the bio, seems to have lived something of a "life less ordinary" which, combined with a formally published theory, I would regard as notability enough in it's own right. There is, after all, surely notability beyond Google? --Zeraeph 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There certainly is. A putative issue in psychology should certainly not get the thumbs down because of a low number, even a very low number, of Google hits. However, Google does provide hits for the abstracts of articles in recent issues of most substantial scholarly journals in the cognitive and social sciences. Can you find any article that deals with this theory? As I've said, I think that this model/scale should be in Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment (Sage, 2003) if it's taken seriously -- the two-volume encyclopedia does not devote a chapter to each of a few dozen such models but instead a paragraph to each of thousands of them. There's nothing there. Can you name a likely alternative to this encyclopedia? We can look it up in our respective libraries. As for formal publication, it seems not to be published in the Proceedings of the AAAS, as claimed, because this doesn't seem to exist. -- Hoary 13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Benis may be impeccably qualified, but according to his publications list this qualification seems to be restricted to medicine, not psychology. With respect to a "formally published theory", any kook can achieve that, and many of them indeed have (see, for example, William Dembski and Jack Chick) — books aren't peer reviewed. Also, keep in mind that Psychological Dimensions Inc. (now defunct) didn't seem to have restricted itself to publishing scientific books: among its offerings was a book on parapsychology. Now, while all this doesn't necessarily disprove NPA's notability, Google does provide pretty strong evidence when it fails to turn up a single independent scholarly reference to this 26-year-old theory among the millions of academic articles, web pages, and bibliographies it indexes. One would think that a notable psychological theory would have been mentioned at least a few times in the last twenty years, if only to criticize it! —Psychonaut 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • His MD would entail a substantial element of psychiatry and psychology, while his impressive academic career would serve to instil the proper disciplines of scientific research and hypotheses an provide a professional reputation that would depend upon adherence to a reasonable standard of same, as his book and presentation clearly demonstrates. Psychological Dimensions inc did indeed publish a compilation edited by T X Barber, a reputable ivy league clinical psychologist, called "Advances in Altered States of Consciousness and Human Potentialities, Volume 1." which related to parapsychology and hypnosis. However this was in 1976, at a time when parapsychology was more closely associated with the mainstream than it is now. --Zeraeph 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're completely missing the point (and the conclusion of my last comment), to wit: no matter how "emminently qualified" (or not) Benis is to develop and publish a psychological/genetic theory of personality, the ultimate issue under consideration here is whether said theory is notable. Notability, both in science and in Wikipedia, is not determined by whether the theory is correct, or well-written, or published, or espoused by someone of certain qualifications or reputation (all of which you have argued). Rather, notability of a theory is established when the general public, or at least its proponent's scientific peers, note the theory. Notice the linguistic connection between the terms to note and notability? The latter requires that the former has occurred. Until you or anyone else can present any evidence that a significant proportion of the general public, or a significant number of psychological and genetic researchers, have noted Benis's theory, then we must assume (for the time being) that Benis's theory is not notable. The best evidence that people had noted the theory would be references to it in popular and scientific literature, in the form of books and articles (or even sections thereof) dedicated to the study of the theory, or citations of Benis's published works on the theory made in support of some other theory. —Psychonaut 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder, could we go with the policy definitions of notability while discussing this rather than personal opinions? See WP:Notable, which takes us to WP:BIO , Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:BK and any other policies or guidelines deemed relevant? --Zeraeph 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since when is the plain-English interpretation of the word "notability" a personal opinion? And the subject of this AfD is not Benis's book, so WP:BK does not apply. And WP:Notability (academics) is not a Wikipedia policy; it has just as much official standing as my explanation of "notability" above. There's no need to resort to wikilawyering when application of common sense will do just fine. —Psychonaut 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would feel that his theory and the book he wrote about it (which you, I think, chose to include in this AFD for his bio - not actually sure where policy is on that eithe,r to be honest) are a better fit for WP:BK than for any of the other options. For the rest, I feel sure you are as entitled to express your opinions as I am to express mine. Though editing a guideline to bring it more into line with your own opinions on this particular AFD seems a curious way to express indifference to it's contents [11] --Zeraeph 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Benis' theory has never been mentioned, however briefly, in any peer-reviewed publication in any disclipline. While Benis is a scientist and surgeon, he is no psychologist, no geneticist, no primatologist. In the past 20 years, he has not done any scholarly study of relevant literature or research. He has continued to solely rely on a minor personality theory of the early 20th Century. In the meantime, there has been decades of published primate behavioral studies and behavioral genetics research. True, Benis' theory may be valid, but the issue is not whether it is valid, but its noteworthiness. Apparently, it is not Wikipedia's job to provide platforms for obscure theories in the hope they will be discovered. Benis is quite devoted to his theory and book, but his interest has unfortunately not been enough to drive him forward in developing it. Therefore I too, with sincere regret, have to vote *Delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Notability. In fact, I could argue OR because although it has been published it is not verified by any other source... Anyway, with access to a vast library (students of universities tend to have access to most academic journals in all disciplines online), that is fully searchable, nothing can be found - as above. QuiteUnusual 13:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, Dhartung and several others. Valrith 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom.Edison 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete NPA personality theory, keep (but rewrite) Anthony M. Benis. This is the both the most clearcut and the most worrying AFD nomination I have yet seen. Clearcut in that both articles are about essentially non-noteworthy subjects, and both have wormed their way deep into the mesh of wikipedia at the clear behest of the subject himself. As discussed above, the grounds for deletion of both articles are very clear, and if we let them stand, we might as well give up on AFD. Huge thanks to Pyschonaut for the exceptionally well-researched nomination.
    However, the breach of wikpedia guidelines about verifiability and self-promotion is so serious that I would strongly urge that an article on Anthony M. Benis should be retained, but rewritten as a short article which tells the story of this self-promotion. I know that this is somewhat self-referential, but I think that it is important for wikipedia to record such a serious and successful effort to breach such very clear guidelines: User:Hoary is right to describe this is an "unscrupulous and unintentionally risible use of Wikipedia". Only m'learned friends stop me using stronger words.
    If there is no consensus for a rewrite, then I would support deleting the Anthony M. Benis article; it should not stand in its present form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to delete both per discussion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like your suggestion to keep an article on Anthony M. Benis about his misuse of Wikipedia. However, since this event is has not been covered by any independent news source, I think it would be inappropriate to leave it in the main namespace. Perhaps it could go in the Wikipedia: namespace, as a sort of essay/case study and linked to from policies such as Wikipedia:Vanity articles. —Psychonaut 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Psychonaut, I think you are right that an independent source would be required for an article in mainspace, so I'll change my vote to delete both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another point is, generally speaking it's a bad idea to vote for rewriting: if someone rewrites the article, you can always change your opinion.. but a vote for rewriting may never be implemented. Mangojuicetalk 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't much like the idea of keeping "an article on Benis about his [alleged] misuse of Wikipedia". These articles have a mighty strange aroma to them and very possibly a similar aroma persists in other articles still to be discovered; yet some of the talk here is starting to sound unpleasantly vindictive. If it's finally decided that these articles should be deleted (and I think they should be), then let's kill them and bury them; no need then to dance on their graves. -- Hoary 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, I strongly support your POV on this dirty notion of vilifying Benis. I have known this man for MANY years, have witnessed his interactions with others, and he is NOT capable of acting with the intent some here ascribe to him and I find those unfounded and unproven assertions to be highly hurtful and damaging to a man who I have never known to be presumptious, egotistical or self-promothing. He is gentle and humble man and the ONLY reason he has ended up on the topic page today was his reliance on dear friends who strongly encouraged him to come here, never guessing at what could happen. You simply can't look at an end product and extrapolate backwards to discerning a person's inner state of mind, never mind intent - in a case like this where there is zero evidence of intent to use wiki to enrich or glorify himself. -A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very relieved to see two editors managing to remember that DR Benis is a fellow human being and that there is such a thing as WP:AGF (which, in Dr Benis case can, to the best of my knowledge, not only be assumed, but taken for granted). --Zeraeph 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As in scientific literature, a case study needn't name names or assign blame. It could simply describe the events generally (i.e., under what circumstances the two (unnamed) articles were created, how the perpetrators peppered other articles with references to the two, and how one of the articles managed to be listed as a good article). This would then allow other editors to speculate on what specific flaws in Wikipedia policy allowed this problem to grow and go undetected for so long.
        • And as an aside, you're correct in referring to Benis's misuse of Wikipedia as "alleged"; I considered using that term myself but noted that consensus so far is overwhelmingly in favour of deleting these articles. If the articles are indeed deleted, then the misuse will have been established. (Whether or not that misuse was intentional is another matter.) —Psychonaut 00:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dealing with something almost exactly like this in a number of articles related to hardcore punk. These people can be very difficult to get rid of once they dig themselves in and start lawyering around with Wiki policy. Very Strong Delete Auto movil 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both lacks sufficient independent verification to establish an good, neutral article, also not COI concerns.-- danntm T C 00:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the bio article; no opinion on the other one. This is an article on an academic with dubious notability, clearly borderline at best. Given that the article is clearly vanity, we should delete it. Mangojuicetalk 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When we were contacted by an Editor to make a contribution to Wikipedia on the subject of NPA personality theory, we were assured that the individuals there were friendly and open-minded. We believed him. Alas, we were wrong on both counts. Adieu. ABenis Bienek 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attack of the manipulative, victimized psychologists... Auto movil 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ABenis, I'm sorry to hear that you think this deletion debate shows Wikipedians to be lacking in friendliness and open-mindedness. The original announcement was framed in tentative language and openly solicited contrary evidence. Indeed, some of the participants in this debate have been bending over backwards to uncover any shred of evidence (in the form of citations, publications, etc.) which would support the inclusion of these articles on Wikipedia. We have so far come up empty-handed. As the primary author of these articles and of the NPA personality theory, you are undoubtedly the single most qualified person to provide us with the evidence we need to prove that these articles meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, accuracy, and verifiability. If you sincerely believe that these two articles belong on Wikipedia, I implore you to give us some third-party reviews, citations, case studies, sales figures for your book—in short, anything at all which would support the assertion that you and NPA personality theory are widely recognized as important in the fields of psychology and genetics. —Psychonaut 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, per well-reasoned and carefully stated nomination. Please play the ball here, not the man. Guy 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both on the basis of the excellent nomination and supporting comments --Steve 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I was reluctant to vote at first, but after reading the additional comments, I am more convinced that neither of these articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. A single book about a theory does not establish notability for a scientific theory when there has been little mention of it since its original publication and it has not been recognized by other experts. Likewise, I don't think that Dr. Benis has done anything yet to set him apart from similar academics and scientists. However, I will also say that I am somewhat embarassed by the way that he has been treated on this AFD. I had some pretty strong disagreements with Dr. Benis's supporters, but they were never anything less than civil during my discussions with them. Dr. Benis was simply asked to write an article on Wikipedia. It seems that he did not familiarize himself with Wikipedia's policies when he first came here, but let's be honest, most people don't learn them until they've been here for months. Writing an article that gets deleted is not vandalism, and I don't see any evidence that he was not behaving in good faith. There's no reason to attack him here; we only need to explain why the articles should be deleted. —Cswrye 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. This is an embarassment to the project, we should attempt to rectify it as quickly as possible. siafu 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I've been following since one of them came up at FAC; the relevant search for this theory is at Google Scholar (where medical works appear), which reveals the work has no widespread peer support, and it appears that Wiki has become a venue for publication of Benis' non-notable works. Sandy (Talk) 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article recently had a "request for mediation" template attached to it. The links within this didn't point to anywhere informative, and indeed a quick look around didn't show me any sign of a request for mediation of this AfD. Mediation of an AfD strikes me as an odd idea, but this oddity aside, the template looked mistaken. I therefore commented it out. Anyone who find that there has indeed been a RfM should tinker with the template to make it useful and then "uncomment" it. -- Hoary 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nomination and subsequent discussion seem wholly persuasive, and, as a side note, while the tone has at times been a shade heated, this AfD has on the whole been a tea party compared to some I've seen. Robertissimo 13:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mediation? Of what? If we had thought for a minute that our contribution of “NPA personality theory” was improper or, indeed, not enthusiastically accepted, we would never have submitted it. We were told that it would make a splendid addition to the [Category:Psychological theories] section of Wikipedia. We agreed, and we produced the best article that we could, that eventually went through peer review where the major request for change was to add citations. We never claimed that NPA theory was the conventional wisdom of experts in the field, and indeed it is not, although it is the only quantitative personality trait theory put forward so far. But the fact remains that it is you, Wikipedia, who asked for the article. For those who were quick to rush to judgment, we ask you to look through the other Wikipedia entries under [Category:Psychological theories] and tell us, honestly, where you think NPA personality theory should be ranked.
We are mystified at the irrational reaction that led to this implosion. It began with disparaging statements, full of inaccuracies, on the Discussion Page of the article, and quickly culminated in an apparently orchestrated campaign to expunge the NPA theory article and the associated biographical article. If there is one error that we did make, it was to allow the biographical article to take its present form, which does, indeed, give the appearance of a vanity entry. The biographical article was not our idea, and the original information that we submitted was a short paragraph from the dust jacket of our book.
Finally, if Psychonaut believes that he is friendly, open-minded and a “scientist”, then he should know better than to label a falsifiable mathematical model that is outside of his field as “pseudoscience and quackery”. But he is young and should have the capacity to learn from his mistakes. We hope that he does.
But enough. Once more we wish you all the best and bid you …adieu. ABenis Bienek 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mediation is needed. This article may be better placed under a psychiatry or neurology section of Wikipedia. The theory's underpinnings are all solid medical science. Here's a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Ninth Edition, p. 152. The neurologist assigns to it (emotion) a more precise definition-a complex state of the organism comprised of a mental component of fear, anger, love, or hate in association with certain visceral changes that are mainly under the control of the autonomic nervous system and lead to a certain pattern of motor expression." And a paragraph later: "Cannon and Bard and their associates studied the ways in which the two parts of the autonomic nervous system participate in the emotional state-the parasympathetic mediating trophotropic, restorative and reproductive functions, viz., the general homeostatic functions; and the sympathetic (including the adrenal glands) mediating self-protective or ergotropic functions. Hess and Bard localized the central control mechanisms in the hypothalamus which are ideally situated to send impulses via descending tracts to the parasympathetic and sympathetic segmental apparatus and via releasing factors to the pituitary-adrenal-thyroid system." Donna K. Hobgood, M.D.Donnamd@pol.net 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you talk of a different "section", I think you're referring to the article's (articles'?) categorization. If you think it's miscategorized, you're free to change the categories and to announce here that you have done so. (The AfD template at the top of the article invites editors to improve it.) As for the rest of your comment, you seem to be arguing for the validity of NPA. This is a bit odd, but very understandable in view of the way it has been referred to above as pseudoscientific (or at least redolent of pseudoscience). Still, your task as somebody who thinks the article is worthwhile is not to persuade people here that the theory (its subject matter) is worthwhile but instead to persuade them/us that the theory has made some sort of mark in the psychiatric, neurological or other community. Is it used? Is it even discussed? If not, fine, but was it a stepping-stone toward a theory that is used or discussed? If not -- then I regret that this suggestion may irritate you, but still -- can it be shown to have been a significant part of what later turned out to have been a noteworthy blind alley? Can you name a reference book in which it's mentioned? (It wouldn't need its own article; an entry in the index would be a start.) "My" library is not strong for psychiatry or neurology, but I imagine that others here have access to libraries that are better. -- Hoary 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nominator, Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) the place for hosting original research. Yamaguchi先生 06:14, 1 November 2006
  • Keep the article, with conditions. This is the first time I had ever participated in an AfD and at first, of course, I didn't understand that this is not an actual vote and I didn't understand that there are outcomes besides Keep or Delete. I had originally voted "delete with deep regrets", but the physician who is involved in the first research project of Dr. Benis's theory posted here last night and I started looking around and realized that there IS a place, a valid place, for a theory of this kind. Here you can see another researcher whose virtually identical type of theory is part of a very honorable field of genetics - Behavioral Genetics. There is an extremely valid and appropriate place for Dr Benis' study and, IMHO, it should be adapted as necessary to become a part of this article. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, per nom and other discussion. -Will Beback 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPA per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I don't like how the article tries to surf on the eminence of Karen Horney, even though she had no involvement in the theory. Between pulbications and citation search I find very little that points to this as an established theory or to Benis as an eminent researcher, although I might revise my opinion on Benis if I find more. Btw, I don't think that User:ABenis's edits to the Benis article amount to WP:AUTO. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, although it would be nice to file the NPA article in some permanent archive of noteworthy WP:NOR violations. Whether the theory is valid is not for Wikipedians to decide; if there are no reputable sources which accept it, it does not belong on Wikipedia.-- Visviva 09:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGING CATEGORIZATION OF ARTICLE

[edit]
  • Mediation is needed. This article may be better placed under a psychiatry or neurology section of Wikipedia. The theory's underpinnings are all solid medical science. Here's a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Ninth Edition, p. 152. The neurologist assigns to it (emotion) a more precise definition-a complex state of the organism comprised of a mental component of fear, anger, love, or hate in association with certain visceral changes that are mainly under the control of the autonomic nervous system and lead to a certain pattern of motor expression." And a paragraph later: "Cannon and Bard and their associates studied the ways in which the two parts of the autonomic nervous system participate in the emotional state-the parasympathetic mediating trophotropic, restorative and reproductive functions, viz., the general homeostatic functions; and the sympathetic (including the adrenal glands) mediating self-protective or ergotropic functions. Hess and Bard localized the central control mechanisms in the hypothalamus which are ideally situated to send impulses via descending tracts to the parasympathetic and sympathetic segmental apparatus and via releasing factors to the pituitary-adrenal-thyroid system." Donna K. Hobgood, M.D.Donnamd@pol.net 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you talk of a different "section", I think you're referring to the article's (articles'?) categorization. If you think it's miscategorized, you're free to change the categories and to announce here that you have done so. (The AfD template at the top of the article invites editors to improve it.) As for the rest of your comment, you seem to be arguing for the validity of NPA. This is a bit odd, but very understandable in view of the way it has been referred to above as pseudoscientific (or at least redolent of pseudoscience). Still, your task as somebody who thinks the article is worthwhile is not to persuade people here that the theory (its subject matter) is worthwhile but instead to persuade them/us that the theory has made some sort of mark in the psychiatric, neurological or other community. Is it used? Is it even discussed? If not, fine, but was it a stepping-stone toward a theory that is used or discussed? If not -- then I regret that this suggestion may irritate you, but still -- can it be shown to have been a significant part of what later turned out to have been a noteworthy blind alley? Can you name a reference book in which it's mentioned? (It wouldn't need its own article; an entry in the index would be a start.) "My" library is not strong for psychiatry or neurology, but I imagine that others here have access to libraries that are better. -- Hoary 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello, Dr Hobgood. I agree with you that psychology was a bad placement, but I don't think that psychitry or neurology are any better. Temperment inheritence under genetics would be the best. For centuries, for thousands of years, mankind has selectively bred animals on the basis of personality characteristics. Cattle, horses and dogs are probably the best represented.
      • And cattle, horses and dogs all have different characteristics that are present and can be manipulated by selective breeding. For dogs, it is territoriality, dominance and affiliation. For man, it might very well be these other three. But it IS in animal science that this type of genetics is best recognized, understood and accepted. Also, considering the huge explosion in primate studies over the past 20 years, it might have TREMENDOUS acceptance with primatologist and primatology.
      • Personally, I think the research has tremendous validity. It is just that, as personality theories go, it's currently dead in the water (even if it proves eventually to have been revolutionary and ground-breaking).. But there are other venues where it could easily go. And if he were to look up the contact info for various primate behaviorists and primate study centers, he might find a lot of researchers eager to examine what he has to say. He could upload his entire book to WikiBooks...
      • The world is still a far way from admitting that we are a whole lot more like dogs and apes than we are like gods. We like to think that how we act and how we think and how we react comes from something a little more fancy that "breeding." But how at home we were not all that far back when people placed such a high value on "breeding", using it to explain all sorts of human success and failure. After Freud, however, and all who came after, and the ridiculous theory of the infant born as a blank slate.

So yes, I more than think his theory has a place - just not in psychiatry or psychology. Maybe in a few more years. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 09:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • Excuse the repetition, but I don't think that a debate on the merits of NPA is appropriate here. Yes, I'd agree with you that the "blank slate" idea is ridiculous, but (aside from the fact that it wasn't always ridiculous) it has been sufficiently influential to prompt the recent publication of an entire book (by Pinker). And Freudianism (which I happen find equally ridiculous) constitutes a (putatively) academic and psychotherapeutic industry. I'm waiting for news of the effect NPA has had, on anyone or anything, in any category. -- Hoary 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this AfD is not a place for this discussion. I'll be at the Talk Page at Behavioral Genetics --A green Kiwi in learning mode 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how far this theory, promoted by a few editors, worked its way into Wikipedia [12][13] [14] [15] [16] and the ongoing campaign to promote the theory on Wikipedia [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] please take the following user talk page into consideration: User:A Kiwi/draft-NPA Personality Theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.195 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 November 2006.

  • Delete I don't understand how this NPA personality theory piece of original research gets an A- (Quality) and Mid (Importance) from WikiProject Psychology. The idea that human personality is determined by a single Mendelian locus with three alleles is totally at odds with all modern behavioural genetics research into the topic, see introductory textbook such as Plomin et al's Behavioral Genetics (W H Freeman & Co.). This NPA article makes no real attempt to reconcile it's content with current science what-so-ever. Further oddities, such as why some phenotypes are spontaneously aborted are never explained, and make no sense. Why humans have this three locus polymorphism, but all the non-human animals in the article have one single personality type is not justified or defended, and at marked odds with current biological views. How putative monomorphic ancestors give rise to polymorphic humansunder some hand-wave "evolution" section is plain kooky. None of the material in the "Criticism and controversy" section deals with the NPA theory, the putative subject of this article. This is no doubt due to the fact that this non-notable theory is totally unknown to science and therefore uncriticised. From the material presented here, it's fairly easy to guess why, it's not really connected to the present state of knowledge in the field at all. The Anthony M. Benis article fails standards of notability, since it rests on this article as the notable achievement. Pete.Hurd 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We had said that we were leaving, but somehow keep getting prompted to return here.

We should like to emphasise that we have never contested the non-notability of the theory. We do not understand why “mediation” should be applicable here, for Wikipedia should have the sole say of what goes into its pages, and there is really nothing to mediate. If Wikipedia decides that the article is not appropriate, we have absolutely no quarrel with that.

We have noted Dr Hurd’s entry, and although this page should not be encumbered with a discussion of the merits of the theory, we hope that you will permit us a short reply.

The original article that we submitted at Wikipedia’s request was short, a bare-bones summary of the theory, without illustrations. The article did grow, at the request of an editor, with further requests to comment on the possible implications of the theory. That is how the section on evolutionary implications found its way into the article.

The biographical article was also not our idea, and we agree that it should not have been there at all.

We suspect that Dr Hurd must have read the article hurriedly, for the theory is not so “kooky” as it may appear at first glance. The non-notability of the theory aside, Dr Hurd’s comments contain several misstatements, and we believe they give the reader an inaccurate picture of the seriousness of our model.

First of all, we do not say that that “human personality is determined by a single Mendelian locus with three alleles”. The model comprises three separate loci for the three traits, and furthermore we did state that there were at least “four tiers” to the human personality, with the possibility of many genes entering into the picture. We also did explain the basis of why certain phenotypes are spontaneously aborted: “Certain combinations of parental genotypes may lead to zygotes having only the P trait (P phenotype) or lacking all three traits (null phenotype, denoted by 0).” The reason why such zygotes are non-viable is that they develop no functioning autonomic nervous system. Although Dr Hurd considers this to be an oddity, it is a predictive aspect of this deterministic model.

Next, we did not say that “all the non-human animals in the article have one single personality type”. We clearly stated that “Akin to humans, the omnivorous, promiscuous chimpanzee, also capable of the gingival smile, would likely have a heterogeneous distribution of types, with NA and NPA types predominating”. Finally, nowhere do we imply that “monomorphic ancestors give rise to polymorphic humans under some hand-wave ‘evolution’”. Surely, Dr Hurd does not mean to imply that baboons, orangutans and chimpanzees are our ancestors.

The NPA theory, being based on genetics, is one of the very few falsifiable theories in psychology. Perhaps, it will turn out to be “false”. But if notabilty is the criterion, then we agree that in the present circumstances it does not belong in Wikipedia. Once more, we wish you all the best, and bid you ...adieu. ABenis Bienek 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do feel that when one academic criticises the work of another in a related field he owes it to all of us to explain that criticism in recogniseable academic terms that we can assimilate and learn from. I am not convinced of "kooky" as a valid academic term. It certainly does not convey much to me about the specific nature of Professor Hurd's objections. --Zeraeph 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Mediation

[edit]

I feel that I really must point out that the RFM at the top of the page is NOT in any way about this article, or the RFD.The mediation primarily concerns activities on another MFD but this RFD is also involved. --Zeraeph 10:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This might not be the right place to place the mediation banner. -Will Beback 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As confusing as I freely admit it is, WP:RFM clearly states:
  • Add the text {{RFMF|Case Page Name|~~~~~}} to the top of the talk page of all involved articles. "Case Page Name" should be the same name you put in the box below.
Which, as this page is involved, seems to me to mean that the banner must also go here. --Zeraeph 12:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the instructions say on the talk page, it should be on the talk page, not here. --Michael Snow 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuthbert Chronicle

[edit]

Nomination for Deletion An encyclopedically non-notable magazine. This is an article about a spammy free promotional magazine put out by an early British computer games company. Publication of the magazine is said by article itself to have been "occasional" and for a "brief period". Most or all UK computer game magazines from this period had BASIC or other language programs written as text in them (I used to read some of them) - doesn't seem to be anything special about the text adventures mentioned. Also, no sources,. Bwithh 04:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ned Wilbury 15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question In less than twenty years, computer games have evolved from being text code keyed in to 16K of RAM, to hundreds of MB on CD or for lengthy download. It seems to me that there is now a historical revelvance to these magazines, which must appear utterly paleloithic to today's kids. It doesn't sound like this mag was one of the big players a the time, but does it have any significance as a niche example? I'm edging towards a delete, but want to be sure that I understand the context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete -- anything to do with the Dragon home computer could be described as "niche". I knew one person who had one (and he regretted telling us very quickly!), the rest of us had Spectrums and Commodore 64s. I was heavily into the C64 and home computing scene in the years in question and I certainly don't remember this publication - but as above, I'm not aware of the context. Put me down as neutral at the moment, I suppose. Bubba hotep 20:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Now you've convinced me, Brown Haired Girl! Plus, the deciding factor - my favourite C64 publication at the time, Commodore Horizons (in which I had a program published in 1984 and 1985) doesn't even have an article on here. So using that as a yardstick, this shouldn't even have had one in the first place! Bubba hotep 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. This is the place to discuss articles, not redirects. WP:RFD is where you want to go. MER-C 13:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lewis (American footballer)

[edit]

redirects to a disambiguation page without link to footballer's page Mayumashu 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Close(ish), but of the 4 keeps, two were invalid, and two were irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Proto::type 11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aggro deck

[edit]

A broad genre of Magic: The Gathering decks. See the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies discussion which resulted in deletion. Wikipedia is not a game stratgy guide. Andrew Levine 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess openings have been written about in countless books over the years. Can you find books to source any of this? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, so articles that are only accessible to a niche crowd are not good for the encyclopedia (articles that are too "in-universe" are similarly treated). But in this case, the deck articles are always going to focus on how to play them (just like a Pokemon article that was deleted, Blisskarm, and people say we don't delete Pokemon articles!), and I don't think you'd accept the compromise on taking out all of the "how to play" material, so a better option would be to transwiki them to a specialist wiki, like Wikibooks. That way you can keep your articles. ColourBurst 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's no 'How to Play' in these articles. They are theory articles. It's not "The Queen's Gambit", it's "Controlling the center squares is an excellent strategy." Magic is too dynamic to write books about it that don't quickly become obsolete. Sources are Internet-based. NorrYtt 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

ephemera can be captured by wikipedia in a way that other encyclopaedias don't. as long as the article remains factual and omits strategy etc then keep. raining_girl 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-Symbolic Interactionism

[edit]

Sounds like a copy-paste from the Postmodernism Generator. Phrase gets 11 google hits, 10 from Wikipedia or Answers.com, and the only one that looks remotely relevant is a dead link. The paper supposedly putting forth this theory was published in 2006, making this a very neo neologism. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimsonfire

[edit]

A heavy metal band. No evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC. —Cryptic 05:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar coated

[edit]

Article was transwikied to Wiktionary already, and can't really become anything more than a dictionary entry. --taestell 05:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Should have been a prod. MER-C 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe move to Sugar Coating and look at the process †he Bread 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be sugar coating. Given our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), that one can hire expert witnesses in the process, that there are companies that specialize in the sugar coating of pills, and that there are articles studying sugar coating (PMID 5628349), that was my thought also. However, the article would need pretty much a total rewrite and there's alsready discussion of this process and the reasons for it at tablet#Tablet_coating. Uncle G 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Store (television commercial)

[edit]

Non-notable, advertising Subwayguy 05:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zone of the Enders terms

[edit]

Per the deletion of the Metal Gear and Resident Evil glossaries, both of which I wanted to keep but it is evident that they don't belong on Wikipedia

†he Bread 05:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morristown West High School

[edit]

Non-notable high school. Page created by an editor with mostly edits to just this page and a smattering of vandalism. Dgies 07:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a very notable school, one of the top public high schools in tennesse, #2 football team in tenn. #1 cross-country team in tenn. etc. many notable students, too
  • Keep From the comprehensive section of the WP:School: "The school is a post-secondary school."
Comment High schools are secondary schools. Dgies 17:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deprodded the above article WITH explanation before I found this AfD. I, however, have no objection to an AfD on the article. Its always good for the Wikipedia community to revisit these things from time to time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization Fanatics Center

[edit]

Non-notable Internet forum and website. Fails WP:WEB. This site is linked to from the official game website, but merely linking to it is trivial. It has also apparently won some obscure web awards, but none of them are well-known or notable. It is nowhere near as notable as a site such as Serebii.net, and that was deleted. --- RockMFR 07:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to your 'Non-notable': How huge and active does a website have to be in order to qualify as 'notable'? We aren't talking about a grandma's webpage here. This site is very large and very alive, big enough to qualify to be in an Encyclopedia. --- Sahkuhnder 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability has nothing to do with being a certain size or level or activity, it's about being referenced in notable 3rd party sources - please read WP:WEB. Mdwh 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My comment was posed as a question as the site's high Alexa rating was under discussion at the time of my comment. Upon more a more detailed reading of the rules I withdraw this comment. Numerous examples of the site being referenced in notable 3rd party sources have since been provided. --- Sahkuhnder 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your undated edit of your above comment: The civ4.com homepage, on the main homepage itself has a whole column of hosted, downloadable mods on the left hand side. Many of these mods are direct content transfered straight from CFC, where the authors of the mods first put out their work for the opinion of CFC members and have active threads for bug fixes, improvement ideas, etc. The Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords homepage has a similar page. --- Sahkuhnder 08:13, 03 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your undated edit of your above comment: One of the awards you quickly dismiss as "obscure" is from the The International Association of WebMasters and Designers. They have over 450k members from around the world. The Golden Web Award from their organization is hardly obscure in any manner. --- Sahkuhnder 08:29, 03 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your Serebii.net reference: Your logic is again badly flawed. The first nomination for the deletion of the Serebii.net page was "no consensus". The ruling for the second nomination stated "There isn't a single word in this article, however, that is verifiable, though. Nothing has ever been written about this site in a reputable source..." You claim CFC is "nowhere near as notable as a site such as Serebii.net". If notability has nothing to do with being a certain size or level or activity, as seems to be the standard used to dismiss many of the claims of CFC notability, and notability is solely based on external factors such as being written about and having external hosting of the site's content, then why would you make your ridiculous claim that Serebii.net is more notable than CFC? Based on what factors or criteria? Based on what evidence? If you make a claim you should be able to either back in up (verifiable seems important to Wikipedia), or else withdraw your incorrect and misleading statement. --- Sahkuhnder 21:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to that logic, we would have over 18,000 website articles here... --- RockMFR 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your response has flawed logic, i.e. - if we can't include them all we shouldn't include any??? Just because there is no need to include all 18,000 doesn't mean the largest and most active aren't enough of a cultural phenomenon to be worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia. --- Sahkuhnder 03:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa test is only to add supportive evidence. A high Alexa rating alone neither signifies importance or actual legimate traffic (ie. link farms). But a high Alexa rating for a legitimate site that is up for AfD means we should take a closer look to see if it passes WP:WEB before discounting its importance. Caknuck 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Definitely one of the major Civ sites, at least in the top two or three, still high-traffic even though the series is getting long in the tooth. --Groggy Dice 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — THe site is indeed directly linked by the game website. However I really feel this article reads like an advertisment. -- lucasbfr talk 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic notability. Articles on fan sites are getting out of control. The way we're going, at some point for every article on a popular TV show, video game, pop star, cartoon series, we'll have a separate article on Wikipedia about the main fan website which reads "this fansite was founded in 200x and it pays tribute to X pop culture thingy and is linked to from X's main website by X's marketing guys", "it has 3 forums and 8 subforums. here is the list", "here are some fun stuff that the forum posters get up to and some running jokes we like - it's a subculture!". Wikipedia is not a web directory. Leave aside how many visitors the site is claiming to get - Does the website do anything encyclopedically notable? Does it have any impact on the wider culture? I mean even things like Fark and YTMND have more of a notable impact than these fansites. And yes, I'm a Civ fan and have even used this website several times. (sidenote: Civ 4 sucks though.) Bwithh 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it does have an impact on the wider culture in teh sense that the developers do interact with it. You would write about the influences on a major artist, so why not a game developer? Krupo 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, please note that it has been about a decade (~8 years). Krupo 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! This site is one of the biggest fan-sites on the net (and maybe the biggest) and one of the biggest forums on the net! Threads: 178,088, Posts: 4,547,146, Members: 102,994. Keep it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.63.150 (talk • contribs)
  • keep if it is one of the biggest fan sites on the web then i agree it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.5.122 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete I don't think this site warrants the level of detail in the article, but I'm not strongly supportive of deleting it. That said, it should be added to the external links of the games where it is appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia contains endless information on every South Park episode known to mankind and yet we want to delete one for a very large fansite for a very popular game? Godwynn 18:31, 30 October 2006
  • Keep The site is directly linked to from the official site, has a great number of collaborators on its article, is third on the a Google search for "civilization" (behind only the official sites), and most importantly, provides content other sites do not recieve through its great amount of added playstyles in both multi-player resources, and single-player modpacks. It is among the top 200 message boards on the web (according to BigBoards). To Delete it would be to remove a very instrumental new dimension of playing. --YbborT 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Sahkuhnder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Seems only fair that if apolyton and 2chan have their own wiki articles. I believe it is fair that CFC has their own --Maj_Kusanagi
  • Keep. How many websites can claim over a hundred thousand users? How many websites can claim an average of 500-1000 users on at a time? Plus a massive modding community. It might not be well known outside the internet, but it's one of the biggest boards in the world; in the top 200, according to Big Boards, as cited above. It's one of the biggest game fansites in the world. It's been, for better or for worse, a decently sized force on the internet. Obviously there are bigger, but if that were the only criteria for deletion, then we'd only have one page on wikipedia, "The Universe", and it would be rather too long for my tastes. It is significant enough to merit a wiki page. North King 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Many people have worked hard to create an excellently informative page about an exetremely popular internet forum/fansite. After seeing some of other Wiki-articles that are not up for deletion I'm horrified by the idea that such an excelently written and informative article could be singaled out for deletion. Nc-1701a 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)(nc-1701)[reply]

— Nc-1701a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Essentially passes criterion #2 of WP:WEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.57.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - The page needs some edits, like all young pages, but the site is notable and should be kept. The game developers link directly to it, so it's of great significance and it's closing in on 10 years of age - definitely not a little flash in the pan but something worth documenting given the amount of history that has unfolded there (game developers, especially for the games this site caters to, have publicly stated that fan involvement has driven their work). It's distressing that just because 1. it's about games, and 2. it's a website it gets such shoddy treatment. Smacks of encyclo-snobbery. Krupo 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see why it's called the "Fanatics" center now.... ;) --- RockMFR 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Because someone stands up to you and questions your logic? If you made this demeaning, unhelpful remark on a CFC Forum you may well draw a moderator and receive a warning for trolling. Am I being unfair? Then please tell me how your snide opinion in any way contributed to the discussion, or if you prefer, show this site's true tolerance for diversity of opinion and just delete this comment.... ;). Helpful reading: Your own Etiquette and Civility pages. --mossmonster 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was in response to the flood of obvious meatpuppets who have invaded this discussion. --- RockMFR 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote From the rules at WP:BITE "Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet." If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary." --- Sahkuhnder 11:44, 05 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, because I only recently became a member (see my edits on Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords dated 24 Oct), before, yes, once again, before, you started this deletion lynching makes me an "obvious" "meatpuppet"? Is calling other wiki users derogatory names a part of your duties as an editor, or is just a personal issue you need to try to get control of? My comments are detailed and make specific points. Instead of name calling how about acting like someone in authority should, including welcoming new members and using this page for its intended purpose and actually addressing the valid issues that are brought up for discussion. --- Sahkuhnder 07:56, 03 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RockMFR - Please stop your total disregard for the very rules you are supposed to be enforcing. What about violating WP:BITE? You make a demeaning insult. You get called out for it. Your response is... to make another demeaning insult. And none of your fellow editors or longtime members says a word about your despicable behavior. If you were a newcomer to this site and saw how people are treated here would you bother to stick around and contribute? All of you editors who haven't spoke up, don't ever wonder again why your little web creation here is held in such low regard by the academic community. Single purpose account quote: "...some treat single purpose accounts as having less 'say', though this has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere." Shame on all of you. --mossmonster 01:03, 05 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Marginally passes WP:WEB's criterion 2 and has a fairly strong Alexa rating and forum membership. Also, it contains more than simply a bulletin board, and it is the largest fan site of a highly notable game. It should be trimmed down and given a partial rewrite to get rid of advertisement, however. - Bootstoots 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am longtime member of the CFC Forums. I appreciate its value to those who use it, but it is of no major consequence to the mainstream world. The article reads like an advertisement and frankly, none is needed. CFC stands on its own. I do not feel that a wikipedia article adds anything of value to Wikipedia itself nor detracts from CFC if the article were withdrawn. All that it is doing is taking up space, needlessly. My main point of contention is that if you know enough about CFC to look it up on Wikipedia, you know enough about it to not need to look it up, at all. --JohnHSOG 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— JohnHSOG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Weak Keep - It's got official Firaxis recognition, making it approximatelt 500% more notable than your average fansite. It's linked to directly from the Firaxis site, which as far as I'm concerned is as official as you can get. What more evidence that this is more notable than a normal site? Messages from God in the sky? The Kinslayer 10:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it makes it under WP:WEB and it is clearly one of the largest players as fan sites go. TheRanger 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The fact it is recognized and visted by the developers of two games that have articles on wikipedia, along with the fact that it has over 100,000 members is enough for me. MarineCorps 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am longtime member of the CFC Forums. Respectfully, I see only a negative relationship with a site like Wikipedia. I trust the posts on CFC because they have undergone true peer review, in other words comments are not deleted but are discussed by other fellow members with their own visible reputations, and then each member is free to judge for themselves. CFC is not a tyranny of whoever has the (temporary) last word or of a particular editor's politically correct agenda or personal opinion. Please see RockMFR's "fanatics" comment above for an example of an attitude that wouldn't be welcome at CFC. As JohnHSOG put it "CFC stands on its own.", and it stands taller without any association to a site of highly questionable accuracy and trustworthiness. --mossmonster 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— mossmonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Weak delete The evidence in the article (which is the standard at WP:WEB) is that the site just missed winning an award and is large. No real evidence of independent reviews or the distribution of the content by other sites. In other words, it doesn't meet the WP:WEB standards. I have it on my bookmarks, but that isn't a WP:WEB standard. WP:WEB also doesn't authorize the top N sites of a type for any N or any type. Since it doesn't meet our guidelines, it should be deleted. GRBerry 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever looked at the official Civ4 and GalCiv2 sites, as they are full of mods from CFC. Not only that but the bug hunting and game improvements/new game features that come from the CFC forums, as discussed by game developers that are members of CFC, get added directly into new game patches and game upgrades. There is lots of distribution of CFC content if you just look for it, and as CFC content improves and becomes part of the games themselves, every time the games themselves are independently reviewed a small piece of CFC content is reviewed as well. --- Sahkuhnder 03:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at them in the context of this AFD discussion. I have one bookmarked, the other I've looked at but not bookmarked. Mods aren't really that convincing, as they seem to me primarily the creation of the individual creator, not any particular fansite. The GOTMs being included or reviewed elsewhere would definitely be CFC specific content distributed/reviewed elsewhere. Of course, best practice if you are aware of such is to introduce citations or other references to the article, but we generally will evaluate evidence introduced here despite the WP:WEB requirement that the evidence be in the article. GRBerry 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the content is the creation of the individual creator, no fansite creates anything on its own, but is just a repository of the work of many actual people. Mods may not be convincing to you, but to those of us who play the game they are huge, often to the point of creating what is very near to a whole new gaming experience. Do you know the amount of skill and time it takes to create a modpack? Does some content qualify as 'acceptable' while other content like mods just gets disregarded? Look at the massive number of people who download game mods(including scenarios/new units/custom maps/rule changes/etc.) before you say "mods aren't really that convincing". I read the rules and didn't see the part anywhere where some content counts and some content doesn't. It just seems very wrong that many people simply added their opinion without knowing how large and active CFC is, that it's linked by the offical games homepages, that the game designers are active members, that CFC helps debug the games, that new units, rules and features are discussed and added due to CFC, and that a great deal of CFC content is posted elsewhere for download by those of us who play the games. I guess all that acutal research would be too much work. Easier to just wallow in ignorance and smugly type "Delete - Non-notable/No external content/It's just a forum fansite/etc." without knowing the slightest bit about CFC or the influence it has on both the games and the players. --- Sahkuhnder 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mods for other games (for Civ? I dunno) that have articles here at Wikipedia, so a mod can be notable for an article all by itself. To me, mods aren't that convincing for a particular fansite because they aren't strongly enough tied to any that site. The same mod could have been posted to multiple sites, so which one should Wikipedia credit for its redistribution at another site? That is why I was looking for CFC specific content that was redistributed, because that would be solid evidence for keeping the CFC article, as opposed to an article on the mod or on some other site. As a side note, I think even if the article gets kept much of the current text fails to adhere to our policy requiring verifiability from reliable sources. So the best possible evidence to introduce here is independent published articles from reliable sources that are primarily about CFC. GRBerry 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Web Award is the sort of evidence that meets our standards. Better yet would be to find the original publication by the awarding body, but given the nature of the web I'm not sure that such a page will be available anymore. Opinion changing. GRBerry 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why should this page be deleted? It is a link to a huge website and forum which offers valuable help to any Civilization player. A few of its members were invited to Beta test Civ4, and one of the mods created there has even been included in one of the patches. Even without all that, it has a place in general internet history; being the inventor of the 'Democracy Game' and suspect as featuring the first 'Game of the Month', something which has been included in many other gaming forums. The off-topic forum on its own is worthy of being mentioned here, with deep philosophical and political discussions, as well as things like the 'Giant Radioactive Monkey'. I do not see why wikipedia wants to prevent people from learning about this site. Does the page take up that much server space? Lord Olleus 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Lord Olleus[reply]

— Lord Olleus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Being linked to by another website, no matter how official it is, is not grounds for notability. HYPERLINKS DO NOT EQUAL NOTABILITY. --- RockMFR 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While your all caps comment is indeed impressive, I have to ask if you even bothered to go and look at the official game homepage site(s) for yourself? Actually, of course you didn't or you would have seen that they are far more than just HYPERLINKS back to CFC and that they host CFC content themselves in the form of mods, etc., as well as actual changes to the standard game in the form of CFC upgrades, improvements and de-bugging efforts. WP:WEB criterion 3 for Notability clearly states "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". The official game homepages are well known, and they directly distribute CFC content independent of CFC itself. Really, go have a look for yourself as hopefully your future comments can then be better informed and thus complete and correct. --- Sahkuhnder 02:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:While it hasn't stood the test of time yet, there are no signs that it will stop growing in the near future, and it is already CFC is host to the largest Civilization forum. I'm 100% certain that there is much more questionable content on Wiki that hasnt been put up for deletion, than a 100,000+ members website. Azzaman333 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Azzaman333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Discussion above with Sahkuhnder elicited a reference to their awards. I believe the Golden Web Award from the International Association of Web Masters and Designers meets WP:WEB. (Although technically it should be added to the article per WP:WEB, that standard is not the usual here at AFD.) GRBerry 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. After Apolyton, Civfanatics is the only other civ site that I would consider (just barely) worthy of an article. That said, the article needs to make a stronger case for notability, and the narrow focus puts it on the borderline. --Alan Au 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Only fair considering it has over 100K members. And recognition by Firaxis. Why delete it? --Bluemofia 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Bluemofia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep: RockMFR, consider this. I worked on Civ4 (the primary game both CFC and Apolyton focus on) as a scenario designer. I worked on the sequel as well (both sites also focus on this). You want CFC/Apolyton content that is redistributed? Fine. My "Ages of Discovery" scenario was uploaded to both CFC and Apolyton as content of those sites. Now, the scenario 6 months later is spread across the web being redistributed. Also, this CFC and Apolyton content has been published in magazines (most notable July 2006 Strategy Gamer & November 2006 Computer Games Weekly) with other CFC & Apolyton exclusive content. Jon Shafer, Firaxis scenario designer, has released exclusive official content on both CFC & Apolyton (WW1 & South-East Asia scenarios) which are also now spread across the web. If you didn't jump to such a fast conclusion "Oh it's a fan-site delete it!" BEFORE looking up the facts first, you wouldn't look like such a fool now. Dale 202.10.86.147 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RockMFR: I usually don't say it publically that I worked on the games, and it's not my place to cite my own work in an article such as this. That is not only delusional, but very arrogant. On the other hand it does mention "Fall from Heaven" and "SevoMod" which are actually more popular than my own. It also mentions the fact some mods got onto the game's main website too. Not forgetting the mention in the article that some mods got into Civ4 patches (try to tell my THAT'S not widely distributed and CFC custom content!). But aside from the mods, don't you think the site that invented Democracy Games, Inter-site Democracy Games, Never Ending Story and the Civ4 Hall Of Fame warrants notable status on that content alone? I do. WP mentions other inventors, why not this one? So it's a web community? Dale
  • Keep - Since we have a reference in a book [23]. The article should be trimmed of non-notable/forum specific/unverifiable claims such as the NES, though. Mdwh 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN fan site, just looking to promote itself. Avador 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The article fails WP:BIO by technicality—the only link to a third-party source is for an award that the site did not win, since it finished second, and the reference for the book is to a civfanatics URL. A true third-party link to the book should be provided. Additionally, the article should be cleaned up. I'm not sure that forum rules are exactly encyclopedic content. On the whole, though, I'm willing to concede that enough exists in the article—or could be added—that the article warrants inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you mean - how do you link to a book? Details of a book alone are sufficient (since for the most part, books obviously aren't online), I just provided the URL as some extra information. The URL is not meant to be the reference, it's the book itself which should be the reference. Mdwh 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes notability requirements, could use some more sources but that's not a reason to delete, just to clean up. -- nae'blis 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because recognizable web site. --164.107.92.120 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RockMFR - Nonsense you claim? There are a billion people on the Internet, and only one of them would want to add evidence of this page having a "flood of obvious meatpuppets". And what an astronomically amazing coincidence, this planted comment is very stereotypically "meatpuppet", comes from your school, and was made 6 minutes prior to your logging on and making a comment under your RockMFR name. And of course you deny it, nobody expected you to confess to your guilt. Keep up your good work here on Wikipedia. --- Sahkuhnder 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this user has made quite a number of contributions on various issues since before this AfD was made [24]. Firstly this means it seems unlikely it was RockMFR unless he's been editing anonymously too for a period of time. Secondly, it means this account isn't a Single Purpose Account, and unlikely to be a "meatpuppet", so even if it was RockMFR, it's a rather ineffective fake. Mdwh 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This account seems to have been blocked before for violating the rules. Doesn't that also fit perfectly for a puppet account that a coward is using to hide behind and do mischief as? Is it in any way hard to believe that this guy had been editing anonymously for a period of time? As long as he continued to get away with it why would he stop? It would be interesting to check the posting time/date stamps with this account and see how well they mesh with the four accounts RockMFR admits are him. I only glanced at them and already caught both accounts doing the exact the same, meatpuppet=Keep, RockMFR=Delete to the same obscure page, Black Bitch. Yeah, I'm sure this is just another coincidence too. I guess he didn't think any lowly "meatpuppet" like me would ever catch his deception. --- Sahkuhnder 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth would he use this anonymous IP to make votes opposite to his vote? I mean, I can understand the claim for this AfD, to support the accusation of meatpuppets (though we both know it's true that this AfD has been linked from the forum in question anyway), but no one has made any such accusations on the Black Bitch article. Why would anyone do such a thing? Mdwh 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense ("Famous Players: Erstwhile England soccer captain David Beccombe -- nicknamed Golden Kubbs by afficionados. His wife used to sing somewhat woodenly in a band called The Pine Girls.")

Kubbuteo

[edit]

strong delete - clearly rubbish--Snori 09:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seriously, i love it, and it certainly does exist. I will be happy to improve the artical, assuming it is not deleated
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Hanulak

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 and WP:SNOW, obvious nonsense/hoax. "Thier song was released through Pickle.Sort on June 31st and was getting airplay on local radio by early July. They played numerous tours before thinking about recording more songs, but the band instead decided on taking a holiday and left to Equtorial Guniea, a small tourist island near Africa where Venura's left arm was cut off in a horendous bocce accident which caused him to die of anal bleeding on Decmeber 25th 1999." NawlinWiki 21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venura de zoysa

[edit]

Fails WP:Music SWAdair 09:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by BanyanTree. MER-C 11:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duno.com

[edit]

Standard procedure after contested prod. No opinion from me. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 09:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Character System

[edit]

Utter rubbish. No sources or citations. Looks like a game someone made up. Google search (minus Wikipedia) gives 6 distinct results, 3 of which are encyclopeadia copies of Wikipedia and rest lead nowhere. Emeraude 10:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bates NVH

[edit]

Fails to satisfy the notablity guidelines for companies. An IP address removed the prod tag previously. Hut 8.5 10:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that this page is deleted, can the deleting admin also delete the redirect Bates nvh? Hut 8.5 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, notability not asserted, also borderline nonsense ("Land Rovers prides itself on innovative management practices and was the first indoor football team in the world to propose a 100% robotic team."). NawlinWiki 11:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Rovers Indoor Football Club

[edit]

Non-notable seventh division footy team. Unverifiable, semi-nonsensical article. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Funny I can finds lots of other example in wikipedia like this.

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

The result was delete. DS 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Despair

[edit]

Alleged cult Indian painting. Created by a single-purpose account; image is tagged {{GFDL-self}}; etc. Is this an advert or just a few newbie errors in creating an OK article? -- RHaworth 10:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, on further browsing I noticed the pseudorealism article says something to the effect that this new age in art started in 1974. Coincidence it is the year of this artists birth? I think not... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Search engine optimization; identical topic. NawlinWiki 11:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web Design To Improve Your Rankings

[edit]

Exact purpose of page is unknown, although it started off as a cleverly worded "How To" page with a spam link at the bottom which the original author has since removed. Should be deleted on the basis of WP:NOT instruction manual, technically. Bubba hotep 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Designing/Developing websites that are search engine friendly is an interesting topic. black hat or white hat maybe a better title and article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallen3333 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment - this article is not up for speedy deletion. MER-C 11:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, obvious hoax/attack page. NawlinWiki 11:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie jackson

[edit]

Notability not established, possibly nn-bio SunStar Net 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Hill, North Bay, Ontario

[edit]

Contested prod, so procedural nomination. No opinion from me --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 12:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

v

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code of Campaign Ethics

[edit]

Unencyclopedic text dump, not attempt to make it an encyclopedic article after some time. It's possibly a copyvio to boot. Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mann (politician)/Pierre Audette

[edit]

Non-notable minor politician Emeraude 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page [for same reason]:

Emeraude 12:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Service Portal

[edit]

At best a neologism with no current use, at worst just a plain invention. Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Bittanti

[edit]

Non-notable new media acedemic who does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The article neither cites any reliable sources no claims that such sources exist. A quick google search doesn't reveal any (top results are his webiste and forum posts), nor do Google Books or Scholar show any knowledge of him. One article of his (in Italian) is indexed by scholar. In short, unless verified evidence of notability is provided, delete. Eluchil404 12:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hang Gliding Sites

[edit]

This list does not contain a single extant article, merely several subsections and links to articles that do not exist. Lists should not be created pre-emptively, as this one seems to have been. Dar-Ape 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per previous AfD. --Fang Aili talk 16:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE vs. ECW Head-to-Head

[edit]

Show was a one time special on USA. This belongs mentioned on the main WWE or ECW page, not as its own article. Prod removed, no reason given. Wildthing61476 13:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowe

[edit]

Not notable, contested prod. Count me as neutral, bringing this here from the prod patrol QuiteUnusual 13:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- has also added to List of wine personalities -- this actually gives a good idea of what notability in this field is. Bubba hotep 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, elementary school principal. NawlinWiki 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Mackay

[edit]

This individual may not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, he may have the most important job in the school, but I doubt he's notable in any other way. SunStar Net 13:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Shareef

[edit]

Delete Seemingly non notable "scholar." Article does not establish notability nor can I really find anything which could bring this article to even coming close to WP:BIO. The only thing which I feel remotely establishes any notability is the founding of that institute. I think whether or not that's enough to keep Shareef enyclopedic is questionable eventhough I think that the institute may merit an article. Unfortunately, the institute's website says little to nothing about Shareef. Strothra 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I've come across the Hausa language (I may even have read one of the translations about a number song) I am interested to know more and it is a real pity there is not more information on the article. 1500 documents is a fairly large collection. However my keep mostly is a "please lets have something in this area" rather than specifically on Shareef. One possibility is to rename and place under name of institute.

--Mike 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as an attack article that cited zero sources. The images, also now deleted, were obvious alterations, and clearly intended to support the attack. (The images were copyright violations that were falsely tagged by the uploader. One was an obvious alteration of an image of Maui Taylor copyrighted by FHM.) Uncle G 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent(stalker)

[edit]

No assertion of notability. Uncertain as to if he deserves an encyclopedic article or not. SunStar Net 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect all (rolls up sleeves). Proto::type 15:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1938 World Men's Handball Championship

[edit]

This article is nothing more than a rephrasing of the title and a bunch of templates at the bottom. I'm also nominating the following related articles for deletion as well (they are all identical except for the city name and the year: —Mets501 (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a bad joke or nonsense? Please explain your reasoning. Caknuck 14:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original article is a copypaste SunStar Net 15:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not making any sense. These are legit sport events, it's just that it's not popular enough for a article of every single held event of it. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy&pasted from where? And the subject itself is good enough, there are articles for single seasons of college sports teams (eg. 2005 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team) and a World Championship is usually more notable than that. It's just that in their present state, the articles aren't useful. If someone wants to start a real article on the same subject, great. - Bobet 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I was implying was it's a rephrasing of the title with a template, which isn't a proper article, is it? SunStar Net 18:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen sink syndrome

[edit]

This definition of an unremarkable phrase can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef"). Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as Hoax. 8 google hits, all either unrelated or from mirrors of this article. -- Vary | Talk 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Gynecologists

[edit]

Contested speedy of band article. Article is unsourced since May, having no Discography. The claim is made that they have released 6 albums (only 2 on CD and the rest on vinyl), but google search turns up nothing relevant and they're not found on AllMusic, so this begins to look like a hoax. Valrith 14:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 and WP:SNOW, obvious nonsense/hoax. ("His father is also a very famous Chekoslavkian Binary Supervisor named David Schmelitcheck"). NawlinWiki 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shnurs Du Toit

[edit]
See also Venura de zoysa (AfD discussion)

Of the four supposed "sources" provided in the article, two are URLs with domain names that do not exist (even after fixing the obvious errors) and two are links to random pages about people with the surname "Du Toit". There is zero mention of this person in any source. There are no sources to be found anywhere else that discuss any person by this name, either. The name garners the magic one Google result across the board — this very article. The article is unverifiable, and (given the contributions by Axle92 (talk · contribs) to Smith's Hill High School, the username of Venzy101 (talk · contribs), and Venzy101's comments in the discussion of Venura de zoysa (AfD discussion)) very probably hoax self-glorification by a couple of school children. This article is not speedily deletable. Uncle G 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony huynh

[edit]

Prod contested, so I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:NOT an index of YouTube videos, and subject of article fails WP:HOLE ➥the Epopt 15:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do yuo realize there are aroudn 60 billion people in the world... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnion 1990 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia Benson

[edit]

she is not notable; i think it is enough. --Babel2000 15:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Did you miss "unexplained"? Why don't you make comments like this in response to SPA support comments? Creating a sockpuppet account for the purpose of a single discussion is often a sign of vandalism in progress. VivianDarkbloom 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, creating a sockpuppet account for the single purpose of a running some sort of crusade is often a sign of trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point without personal consequence. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Truthful" is a word that descrives little of your collective commentary, and none of it here. I've described the situation that led me to use this ID, publicly, and I sent you an email desribing it privately. Youre responses have been disgusting and dishonest. And anybody who's working hand in sock with User:Mattisse has any business complaining about nonabusive, open use of multiple accounts. VivianDarkbloom 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you've actually sent me e-mail, no doubt my spam filter automatically disposed of it. Meantime, mind pointing me to the "disgusting" and "dishonest" portions of my comment? The truth is, your "crusade" has gotten yourself some scrutiny, none of it positive. Though as a self-admitted sockpuppet, you'd not suffer any consequences for your behavior -- which is, ironically, confirmation of my statement. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without trying to fan the flames on this already volatile AFD, I will say that WP:AGF has been violated several times, and I ask users to please keep a cool head and not assume that someone who disagrees with you is editing with malignant intent. Even if one is not feeling especially jovial, a simple statement of opinion regarding the content in question without other thoughts will do. On that note, I have changed my mind per the assertions of nobility present here and on the article page, principally the two published books.
Unless you have a personal comment (which is perfectly fine), please keep all further concerns regarding this AFD here, as such concerns are relevant to all users reviewing this AFD, and attempting to post on the talk pages of all users involved is impractical. Thank you, Dar-Ape 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Gosh, thanks for all those well-thought-out, carefully checked commets. In the future, to improve the level of your contributions to Wikipedia, might I suggest you improve your practices in two areas. First, you should actually read the article you are commenting on, and take note of its contents. Second, you should consider the claims made in the article against the relevant notability criteria, even, as necessary, checking the references and external links provided for the article..

    Ophelia Benson is a well-known published author, not merely a blogger (although she is probably notable as a blogger, too). Her two books are listed by title in the article,even though none of you astute readers noticed that. (Apparently the identification of Benson as an "author" and the listing of the book titles in distinctive type was insufficient to tip off careful and well-informed Wikipedia editors like yourselves; perhaps one or two of you may have suggestions on how to improve such descriptions.) Her books meet the notability criteria, having been reviewed and discussed in major media. In fact, Benson is a native of the UK, and both her books have been reviewed/discussed in the TLS, which even Wikipedia acknowledges as "one of the world's preeminent critical publications." (The second review appears in the October 20, 2006 issue, and is not yet directly cited online.)

    Benson's two books may be only available through such obscure retailers as Amazon.com [25] [26] and Barnes & Noble [27] [28], and the relevant pages give samples of reviews and indicate the caliber of Benson's audience.

    Now I recognize that article deletion is a holy and privileged activity, and that deletion of articles about women whose claims to notability don't involve performances emphasizing, flaunting, or exposing their mammaries is a virtual sacrament which shouldn't be disrupted or contested, however ridiculous or inaccurate the basis, unless the circumstances are really really unusual. But while one of England's "leading cultural critics" is apparently not, by Wikipedia editor consensus, as notable as a moderately obese middle-aged woman who films herself having sex with dogs, and the TLS is apparently by the same consensus not a "major" publication with the stature and reputation of Color Climax Anal Sex or Big Fuckin' Tits, or even Juggs, I think she deserves to be included in Wikipedia.

    I now realize that the excessive literacy and cultural awareness I displayed in recognizing the name of a well-known figure in the British academic-philosophical-literary world is inconsitent with the qualities required of a good Wikipedian, and fully justifies the assumptions of bad faith you have all made. I now know that in-depth knowledge of any subjects outside of pornography, Pokemon, and professional sports can only damage the Wikipedian enterprise, and I will do my best in the future to follow your lead and to contribute only with regard to subjects about which I know nothing, or next to nothing.

    Now (dropping the ironic stance) I deserve a public apology from each of the posters whose sloth, carelessness, malice, or incompetence led them to make unfounded, uncivil, derogatory comments about me (and about the entirely blamess Ms Benson). And I deserve a display of abject, public, unqualified self-execration from the ArbCom member who charged to the head of the attack. I expect, of course, nothing but renewed incivility, personal attacks, and evasion of responsibility.--VivianDarkbloom 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above. (Ranting about the "incompetence" of editors who disagree with you doesn't exactly help one's case.) wikipediatrix 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Better ranting than than lying. Exactly why do you think it's OK to falsely claim that a published author whose books are reviewed in her native UK's most-respect literary journal has never published anything outside of hew own blog, or that there is no "evidence that the world has taken note of this person"? VivianDarkbloom 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how this works. If you have new information about Benson that is properly sourced, put it in the article. In the time it took you to rant and froth and lash out at everyone, you could have been improving the article. I've seen many an article saved from deletion by improving it, but I've never seen one saved by accusing everyone else of "sloth, malice, and incompetence." wikipediatrix 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued with Wikiapedrix before, but am newly impressed with her neutrality. Putting on my thinking cap for a moment, I'm reminded of the UK's most prestigious literary journals, comprising Granta, the London Review of Books, etc. 1) Please don't leave angry jeremiads on my talk page unless you have personal Wiki-business to discuss with me. 2) Having mentioned this literary journal, would you please identify and/or provide a cite to it? Auto movil 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I identified the journal as the TLS already, I gave the date of the most recent review above, and I gave links to bookseller which quote reviews from the TLS and other sources. What else do you want? You ought to be more concerned about the half-dozen editors above who are perfectly willing to misrepresent simple facts, either through malice or negligence, and thereby damage Wikipedia that about an editor whose willingness to be blunt when bluntness is called for ruffles your sensibilities. Read the article on Benson. See if any of the "delete" comments actually line up with the contents of the article. Then decide who's playing inside the lines. VivianDarkbloom 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Obviously, being reviewed in TLS establishes notability. Now, Ms. Darkbloom, why don't you add this information to the article to clarify why the author is notable, perhaps with helpful links to the reviews? After all, it is not enough to merely be notable, the article has to establish why you're notable. Right now, the article reads like "blogger who happened to write these books." –Joke 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (many colon marks) As per the above. Please, now, include a citation to the TLS. It is a respected journal; now it's necessary to establish that it covered the author in question. Auto movil 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse previous speedy delete - I've looked at the article again, in response to a request made on my talk page. I still have the same opinion, the "improvements" not being much. - Crockspot 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - subject is the author of two legitimate, recently published books of both scholarly and popular importance. The stubby article can use (and in due course will presumably receive) expansion and improvement, but there is nothing in the interim requiring deletion. As a side comment, "bluntness" should be welcome here, but comments like "ban the nominator" (or for that matter "censure another commentator") are unnecessary; this does not, however, affect the result. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please refer to the current version of the article for several reviews which sufficiently establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Announcement - TruthbringerToronto, you just left a message on the talk pages of everyone who has voted 'delete' on this article, asking that they reconsider their votes. I'm going to ask directly whether you're the same person as Vivian Darkbloom. Please answer yes or no. Auto movil 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm not. I just think it would be a pity if !votes were recorded based on a prior version of the article when the current version is better and (in my view) demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there has been much improper campaigning already. I am determined to vote for or against this VfD on the merits of the article. I do not appreciate being insulted and lobbied on my talk page. I expressed this earlier. Please do not do that. Auto movil 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment TbT is himself, and I do not believe he is in any way related to VDB. He obviously felt passionately that articles are not deleted based on insufficient info, and may have overstepped the mark, but he is sincere. Ohconfucius 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On reviewing the sources added to the article, I've changed my vote to Keep despite the efforts of VivianDarkbloom at improper campaigning. I intend no disrespect when I say that I hope and expect never to hear from this user again. Auto movil 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I submit (as a general matter, not directed to anyone in particular) that perceived incivility or impropriety should not be responded to in kind. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad is advised to look on Auto movil's talk page before expressing such an otherwise admirable sentiment. Auto movil 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the same message on another's commenter's page and noted there that Vivian Darkbloom should tone down her rhetoric significantly and that the apparent imputation of sexism to the delete commenters was particularly unwarranted. I had forgotten that I wrote that on a userpage and not this page, else I would have included that comment as well here, which I now do. Newyorkbrad 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. My remarks concern only VivianDarkbloom, who has engaged in what are usually considered blatant personal attacks, in the process of attempting to influence a VfD. This is not acceptable behavior. Auto movil 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm just going to weigh in once more here, after having been called to this VfD by a gigantic bolus of angry ranting on my talk page. Scenario: Person A tries to get their way by throwing a nasty screaming tantrum. Person B responds like, "What the...? Jeez, cut that out!" Now, this is life, and having been involved in life for awhile, I've noticed something: Whenever the above scenario plays out, there's always a Person C who comes around a liitle while later, all like, "Dudes! Everyone needs to chill out here." To which I say, right now, that the advice is appreciated but misapplied. One person here needs guidance, and it's not hard to determine which person it is, in order to apply it. Auto movil 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (once the sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets are discounted). DS 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devajyoti Ray

[edit]

speedy delete - no notability and i speculate this was created by the subject of the article (based on his creation of articles on his own artwork). give me a break! 4.18GB 13:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Berardi

[edit]

Wife of Ronnie James Dio; non-notable (only 352 google hits) relative of a notable person. IronChris | (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocksaur

[edit]

Delete, some minor online likely fan-created game character. Fails WP:FICTION and likely WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under db-web - someone's character in an MMORPG is extremely unlikely to ever meet notability requirements. ~Matticus TC 16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I had originally tagged this as {{db-web}}, but (I have no idea why) thought it deserved a second look, so I sent it to PROD instead. This was before I realized the creator of the article was a troll who created similar nonsense articles, removed deletion tags, and vandalized my user page. So much for WP:AGF. But yes, I do go back to my original assertion now and support speedy deletion. --Kinu t/c 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Avery

[edit]

From the previous nomination: "Ryan Avery is apparently a local musician and comedian. He has received a few writeups in local papers. He/his bands are, as yet, unsigned. Google returns quite a few results for the name, but, on the first few pages at least, they appear to be for a different individual. Most of the supporting references are to pages created by or for Ryan Avery. I do not feel the subject is noteworthy or encyclopedic." Also, there is no entry in AMG and very few Google hits.—Chowbok 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment interesting that you feel that way. The fact that he's a prominent representative of the scene and a genre should be worthy of WP:MUSIC. As far as you not seeing any evidence that "avant-garde noise" is a notable genre. A little research into the topic would reveal otherwise. a quick google search yeilds about 27,000 results. The term "experimental noise" (which pretty much is another name for avant garde noise) would yield 350,000 results Also other factors fall into the WP:MUSIC guidelines, as mentioned in the previous nomination. Such as this artist opening up for other well known acts, also articles written about him in such publications like CMJ, Phoenix New Times, and College Times. That garners notability, does it not? I think that the references and the cited sources should speak for themselves. RiseRobotRise 10:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 11:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combo deck

[edit]

See the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggro deck and the finished discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies. Andrew Levine 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. I found it and used it exactly as an encyclopedia would be used. Over the years I had forgotten what a "prosperous bloom" deck is. this article described it and how it worked.
Nothing in this article was original research. I've seen all these deck names and the grouping classifications before. This article was a nice place to see it all summarized.
Nothing desribed "how-to" make or play combo decks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.84.100 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-31 13:53
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with NHL 2003. Proto::type 11:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL cards

[edit]

listcruft about NN-card game, possible advert deleteDesertSky85451 16:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soho Rep

[edit]
  • delete - looks to be of no importance 4.18GB 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not sure what reason for deletion is asserted here, but the Drama Desk Award seems to confer notability. I'm a little concerned about the lack of sources, though their own website would be enough.--Kchase T 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am entirely confused by this article. For a start shouldn't the opening sentence be the other way round? "Soho Repetory Theatre...aka Soho Rep"? And the article titled to reflect this. Other than that, it sounds notable, but I haven't got the time nor the inclination to check it externally. The onus is on the author to provide external, independent sources to save us having to look all the time. I would delete it on that basis because otherwise it looks like an overblown advert. However, having awoken with a sense of good faith this morning, I am willing to wait to pass judgement. Bubba hotep 12:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this is an article that needs a lot of references and editing for sense, Soho Rep is a notable theater in New York City. The OBIE awards are notable. Soho Rep is regularly the source of articles in the New York Times and other reputable newspapers--I found a 10 October 2006 NYT piece discussing their new production and new artistic director. I have no present connection to the theater (I worked on one production in 1999) Overcamp 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the assertions of notability are poorly presented, but seem adequate. And the article needs work, but seems salvageable. While I'm here, though, I have to ask, is that really the official name? It sounds more like a common nickname, in which case, the article should be moved to the offical name, with the redirect left in place. Xtifr tälk 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: n/m, the official name was listed in the article, so I went ahead and did the move. Xtifr tälk 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They spell it "Soho Repertory Theatre" on the website. I don't know how to change the article name, but I edited the article body to reflect that spelling. Overcamp 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, ok, I'll come back and clean that up later, thanks. Xtifr tälk 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the main article is now at Soho Repertory Theatre, with a redirect at Soho Repertory Theater (probable common misspelling) and (fixed) redirect at Soho Rep (common nickname). If it gets deleted, they can all go as a group, and if it doesn't, we should be set. cheers. Xtifr tälk 08:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Rogers

[edit]

I'm not sure whether this university professor is notable or not, so I nominate this article without a vote. The article orginally consisted of a copyvio dump from his website, and since that was deleted the article has been a tiny sub-stub. I know too little about his field to judge his notability, but a google search throws up a few snippets which suggest to me that he may be notable, such as [29]. Applying WP:PROF, is he more notable than the average professor? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMMTop10.com Number One Videos

[edit]

This is unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. First of all, the show has been running 4-5 days a week for the last several years, so thousands of number-one videos in the show's history have already been lost in time. Second, well, it's a music video countdown show voted in every day by whoever happens to visit the website, so you can't really say what useful information it's providing the reader, if any. Third, utterly unverifiable in any case since the site only keeps the previous day's vote results, and if the editor who started this should miss a day, then that's one more day lost.

And for the record, I do watch the show; there are better indicators for Top Forty format popularity in Canada. Even disregarding the national singles charts, there's the 'Countdown' program aired by the same station, which actually gets radio airplay. Unint 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 17:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan kingham

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wishsides

[edit]

Spinefarm Records contacted Wikimedia Foundation to inform this compilation is a bootleg. Nominating for deletion based in Angel's Dream, Bless the Century Child, Mysteries and Mysteries vol. 2 precedents. -- ReyBrujo 16:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ReyBrujo 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete both, g1 (obvious nonsense/hoax) and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herald (1967)

[edit]

Delete. No verification for claims in the article; zero Google hits for "Pithare and Tash" and/or "Elmond Pithare", only 5 hits for "Patrick Tash". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding artists' article: Pithare and Tash. ... discospinster talk 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang used in hip hop music

[edit]
Change to Delete per below. David Mestel(Talk) 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there were words consistently and commonly used in shopping lists to mean specific things other than what they mean in normal English, then they would be comparable. David Mestel(Talk) 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An entire dictionary would be useful to someone, too. Doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. There are other places for dictionary definitions.
on a side note...it looks like Mr MPD Dawes is a newly created user...could be a dupe vote...4.18GB 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delizzle in agreement with IslaySolomon. Barno 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unsourced, unmaintainable, indiscriminate collection of information, etc. This list could obviously become quite huge if taken to its logical conclusion; e.g., Nigerian hip hop acts frequently use Nigerian pidgin slang terms in their songs, should we thus include a complete dictionary of Nigerian pidgin? And then a Krio slang dictionary to cover terms used by rappers from Sierra Leone? And the like with every other African creole that someone has released a hip hop album in? ergot 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's a useful guide, maybe not the best one on the Web, but it's still worth maintaining. Yo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.196.225 (talk • contribs)

It does not matter if it is useful. WP:NOT applies regardless of usefulness. -Amarkov babble 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I exist. Multiple reliable sources document my existence. Do I get to create an article on myself? -Amarkov babble 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's in awful shape. That's no reason to delete it, but it certainly doesn't help. What is a reason to delete it is that its subject is non-notable and non-verifiable. --Mr. Billion 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Bakaman said. --Pumpkin Pie 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you think this article should not be deleted, argue the merits of the article, not the history of the nominator. This should not be personal. johnpseudo 04:32, 6 November 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 speedy delete as a copyvio. --Coredesat 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Daubney

[edit]

Not quite speedyable, unfortunately, as the article does assert the subject's notability, but those claims are tenuous and unverified. Only reference is subject's personal web site. 56 ghits (35 unique), many of which are directory listings for subject's bowling supply store. Started at Bob Daubney (Legend) (I kid you not) by an editor most of whose other contributions are vandalism or nonsense pages. -- Vary | Talk 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xaraya Template System Explained

[edit]

This is a how-to guide for some kind of software. Prods by two other editors were removed without any comments. Delete Jamoche 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, the section Marasmusine referred to is why I (and presumably the other two prodders) marked this. It's inherent in the title of the article that it's a how-to guide, so there's nothing really that can be done to make it encyclopedic. Are you saying you agree with the deletion? If so, this can be speedy deleted. --Jamoche 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of ATP Masters Series tournament winners

[edit]

I wonder what is the point of having this article. It is not really chronological, only lists players in chronological order. It contains no additional information compared to the original MS article, everything it has can be found there. I will delete if there will be no explanation why is this more than waste of storage space. Scineram 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alley Cats Strike Again

[edit]

Article on a not-yet-started-filming, made for tv movie. The original's imdb listing is here. I don't believe this is so highly anticipated that we should relax our enforcement of the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doctrine. The article has been created under two names by the same user. Prod was removed from one but not the other. I am also nominating the related article, Alley Cats Strike Again! which has slightly different text.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chessie Moore

[edit]

Nn sex worker, no reliable sources, advertising VivianDarkbloom 19:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas versus Burma: History of the Names

[edit]

Contested ProD. Unverified original research. An unencyclopaedic essay. Unsearchable title. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 (empty), doesn't even say where the school is. NawlinWiki 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boone Middle School

[edit]

Page was created by Tom Hankel, the supposed principal of this middle school. The Tom Hankel article has been deleted numerous times. Article created for only self promotion. Fails WP:SCHOOL andrewI20Talk 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midgame deck

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggro deck and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combo deck. Andrew Levine 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the worst keep criteria ever, close behind "Because I said so". WP:NOT applies whether or not memory is cheap. -Amarkov babble 15:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all - Yomanganitalk 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness News This Morning

[edit]

Pages for individual local newscasts on WABC-TV in New York. Poorly written and non-notable, enough info is in the WABC-TV article.

Also nominated are:

Kirjtc2 19:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to the disambiguation page ...And Justice for All. — CharlotteWebb 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Justice for All

[edit]

Not notable documentary. Even IMDB has nothing on it. There is a much more notable movie with Al Pacino of almost identical name (ellipsis in front). This movie, however, is completely non-notable. It has had no new information for a year. --Tbeatty 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note And Justice For All (capital F) is already a disambiguation page. It doesn't include this non-notable documentary and nobody missed it. This page should be deleted and redirected to the disambiguation page.--Tbeatty 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of animation clichés

[edit]

The entirety of this article is original research. Despite a previous AfD in May that cited Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and voiced concerns about problems with NPOV, original reasearch, and verifiability, no changes have been made to address these problems. The article continues to be an indiscriminate collection of whatever editors have decided are clichés without any references or rules for inclusion. It's listcruft. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - in amongst all the references to hellfire, death, destruction and...chocolate (?) it seems the consensus has damned this article. Yomanganitalk 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of Satan

[edit]

Advertising for non-notable satanists. Leibniz 20:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • High Priest Joseph Swift, of the Joy of Satan: I can fill in a detailed article, in depth and with sources if I am given the ability to do so, and have those sections locked out to prevent vandalism
  • 666 - Mark of the Delete - So not-notable it's evil. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast Ye This Article Into The Eternal Darkness - It was all going pretty okay until about two sentences in, with the thing about 'ancient astronaut theory.' Definitely downhill from there -- especially the part about their being persecuted by a conspiracy of Jews. Auto "Conspiracy of Jews" Movil 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources. Delete per above. Ned Wilbury 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although wary of retribution from the hoardes of Satan and all his little Satanettes, I reckon they would cack their knickers if they met the Dark (Slightly Bitter and Unloved) One. And one last quote: "your brother sups cokes in Helsham, near Exeter" Bubba hotep 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The group's beliefs aren't a reason, a priori, to delete the article, so I checked the official website. It has a few hundred unique visitors a day -- not major, but not totally obscure either. But I'm going with the 'no sources' as well. Impossible to evaluate the claims in the article. Auto movil 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all ye who enter here. Thank God Almighty that there is a modicum of sense around this site. A user asked to please repost it after I'd deleted it and I hadn't seen the new revision until now. This is just wrong. If this group is real and they get an article, then I'll get to work right away on an article about the informal Sunday morning group I'm in that flies R/C airplanes, weather permitting. - Lucky 6.9 00:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Kidding about the group article. No disruptions of the site from this user.  :)

In the name of Beelzebubba, DeleteL0b0t 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Keep I contributed to this article because of their involvement in the
scandal surrounding the National Socialist Movement, which was relatively

current. I also personally find their bizarre beliefs, hilarious! But doesn't it count as notable that they were involved in the resignations within the NSM?


Comment I don't believe it's advertising for them, it condemns them:)Merkinsmum 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this AfD should be copied to BJAODN after it closes. Too many good puns used here to allow it to waste away in an archive. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was the first article I put a lot into so if it amusing, please do so:)Merkinsmum 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you lot reptilian humanoids?:)I'm not really sure what you are after. [31] [32] Articles on the NSM/Joy of Satan scandal. The problem is no-one will bother writing about them unless they have an interest, then they don't count as an independent source to you. There are several anti-JOS sites by former members. I consider myself independent, as I am only anti-JOS in as much as I am anti anything I consider a controlling cult (this is mixed with amused fascination at the wacky belief systems people can make up.) Oh well I hope it amused some people like it did me:) -I think you are all part of the reptilian conspiracy and I will set my mate Enki on you:)(joke)Merkinsmum 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, in the name of Belial how very dare you:) Delete them as non-notable if you wish but there's no question they exist and that their beliefs are as outlined in their website. Here is their annoyingly high traffic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Joy_of_Satan/ they also accept donations from their website. Their beliefs might be seen as nonsense but so can many spiritual movements appear if it comes to that. I know because Father Satan told me so and why would he lie?;):)Merkinsmum 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Bandaids

[edit]

Avril Lavigne fansite; article is pretty spammy; Alexa ranking is 28,795 (higher than I expected). My vote is "Weak delete", what does everyone else think? NawlinWiki 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- and delete again. Just what is notable about fan sites anyway? But besides that personal thought, in this article there are "claims" to notability - made by themselves, referenced and sourced by themselves. Oh, and look, you can join the forum and there's a handy FAQ too. How handy. If it was to be restyled into a proper article it would say "... is an Avril Levigne fan site." - and that's it. It would then be speedied under "nocontext" or "nonsense". Of course it gets good Alexa results because A.L. is a notable figure herself and any site which features her is bound to have big hits. But that doesn't warrant an article for the fan site on these here pages, does it? Rant over. Bubba hotep 21:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is not a topic that could have a good article about it. Ned Wilbury 22:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan sites such as these are generally not notable in themselves. They may warrant an external link from their subject's article (in this case, Avril Lavigne) under WP:EL but usually not a separate article. --Metropolitan90 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Biggest A.L fan site ever. Does not contain -cruft and I will take the POV out if you give me a chance. I am a bandaids insider but we do warrant an article. Will nominate for POV Check. We are notable, we are huge and we even have A.L talk to Staticrebelle. Please, Give the no 1 A.L fan site a chance. -- Punk Boi 8 on behalf of all members of Avril Bandaids . Com. 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair\talk 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete even though it seems a bit like eating your own foot, it seems the consensus is there's no reason that it shouldn't have to pass the tests that we apply for inclusion of other sites. Yomanganitalk 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divehi Wikipedia

[edit]

This article fails or violates at least one of the following: WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. It only has 182 articles according to meta:List of Wikipedias. Depending on how this goes, I will nominate other similar articles for deletion as well. Edit: This was also prodded and deprodded a few months ago.—EdGl 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No independent sources in the article. If Wikipedia itself is the only possible source, then the subject is undeserving of an article. Seems like just an inappropriate self-reference to me. Is the article on Wikipedia not enough to satisfy any of our "articles about Wikipedia" needs? (Save for "offshoots" of the article on Wikipedia, like Wikipedia in popular culture.) Please prove to me how it passes WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. —EdGl 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that all of the information in this article is easily derivable from Wikipedia's own information content services, as well as Bi-lingual Wikipedians who contribute to both Wikipedias. (and we'll assume that there are sources for the language of the Maldives, if not, then you'd best object to that elsewhere). And the reason why the article on Wikipedia is not appropriate for this information is simply a matter of convenience. That article is large enough without trying to describe every language. Yes, this is a shorter one, but some of the others are not, and those have enough details that they should clearly be kept. Given that, I'd rather keep articles on all of the languages than none. And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others. It's clear to me that Wikipedia should document itself, and part of that documentation is information on the foreign language version. To do otherwise just seems strange to me. But then, I said as much in the Czech language discussion. You aren't offering anything new, in fact, you're repeating the same arguments given there. They aren't convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a strong argument in that this article violates policies and fails notability guidelines. The "repetitiveness" of my arguments have nothing to do with their strength, and "they aren't convincing" is merely your opinion (which I respect). You said "And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others." What makes this article an exception? We can all of a sudden disregard policy and notability guidelines? I am very skeptical about your statements, which provide a weak argument at best in my opinion. —EdGl 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. It's called common sense, and it's a valuable asset in making all decisions. Wikipedia should describe itself(Wikipedia is notable, for many reasons, but even if it wasn't, I'd say it would be important for the site to be able to describe itself). Wikipedia has foreign-language components(if you don't believe this is the case, I suggest you visit wikipedia.org). Since they clearly exist, they should also be described. Given the potential length of those articles, having seperate articles is probably the best way to do that. Can you come up with a good reason why having this article is a real and substantial problem? I can't. Can you come up with a better way to do things? I doubt it, but you're welcome to make suggestions as to other options. However, deletion is not one of them. It's not effective. If you've gotten any objections to the content, you can check it seperately, but please don't try AfD's for cleanup. Anyway, you can cite policies all you want, but if you'll check things like WEB, SELF, others, they have exceptions and clarifications that clearly show they aren't to be adhereded to like a bunch of mindless machines. FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. I hope the closing admin will take comments like that into account when deciding on something like this. If we start ignoring WP:RS, then where does it stop? We might as well throw WP:V out the window. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of WP:NN: "Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Wikipedia. This is a necessary result of Wikipedia being a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. The terms 'importance' and 'significance' are also in use, and for practical purposes on Wikipedia they are similar." That is why this article is problematic. Also, if I could have come up with a better way to do things, then I would just do it. But, since I don't believe this article deserves to be on Wikipedia, and I want to get a consensus on whether it should be kept or not, I brought it here. By all means, if you convince me that this article should be kept, I'll change my mind. I want to see what the community thinks first. I want to get suggestions out of you guys :-) —EdGl 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the very first part of Notability is: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. . Note the not set in stone, common sense, occasional exception. This is clearly one of those. FrozenPurpleCube 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly one of those? Well I don't think so. Take a look at the article again (Divehi Wikipedia). It has been around for eight months, but it is grown to be no more than a five sentence stub. Without independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, I don't see this article growing at all. I don't even think this article has the potential to grow. An article about the smallest nook/cranny about Wikipedia shouldn't exist. The "occasional exceptions" would include the other "language Wikipedia" articles (that have thousands more articles than the Divehi Wikipedia) that I didn't put on AFD. —EdGl 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a slow growing encyclopedia, which is no surprise given the number of speakers. So what? It's a simple article, with nothing that needs extensive verification outside the wikipedia software. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to check the number of articles it hasAll you need is this link and you can verify the date at this site. Other than that, the only other information refers to the language itself, which I assume you're not questioning. All in all, no big deal. Does this article need to grow? I suppose, but that would depend on Wikipedians who speak both languages being interested in informing us. I doubt it'll happen quickly, if at all, but so what? That's just a result of the idiosyncratic growth of Wikipedia, not an argument as to merit. As it stands though, what content is there right now is not a problem, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. This is not a mountain. It's not even a molehill. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is intended as humor and should not be followed. Never do that again. My intention is not to "show how flawed and biased processes on Wikipedia are", but to get a consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. What exactly did you mean by your question anyway? —EdGl 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A totally unacceptable response, Pavel, and I suggest you rethink your attitude. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I came here to get community opinion, input, and consensus, not to be accused of bad faith. Not only were your comments unacceptable and offensive, but totally unproductive as well. Can you please defend your keep vote instead of bashing fellow Wikipedians? Seriously, is your point to show how uncivil Wikipedians are? (Of course, if you apologize, all will be forgiven and forgotten.) —EdGl 18:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I trust that this vote will not hold any weight towards the final decision on this case. —EdGl 04:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lindahl

[edit]

This had been created and deleted before. Here's the old afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Lindahl. I don't know what to think of this guy but it was tagged for speedy and disputed so more discussion seems appropriate. Ned Wilbury 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:BIO unless it now includes "People who use a computer alot". Hey, I qualify for that... just. I particularly enjoyed the conversation on his user page concerning the creation of the article. Bubba hotep 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- and I don't mean any offence to the subject, I might add (assuming good faith, just for a second here). Bubba hotep 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VANITY L0b0t 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear case of vanity. ike9898 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this article qualifies under two categories of notable persons:
    • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Greg is doubly significant in the history of IRC, as the instigator of EFnet and the writer of the first bot.
    • Google Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google or other well-known Internet search engine? Quite a significant number of articles show up on Google if Greg is searched for. Results 1 - 100 of about 139,000 English pages for "Greg lindahl". That's an incredible number of articles! The overwhelming majority seem to be about the history of IRC.
    • Also, a number of wikipedia articles already link here.
    • I created the article. I'm not Greg (check my contribution history, etc.) Greg didn't ask for this. How is it vanity?Fourdee 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entertaining thing about this process is that the person who could actually fill out the article with information relevant to the vanity issue isn't allowed to, because that's vanity. I'd be lying if I claimed this is funny, actually, this repeat creation by well-meaning people followed by deletion is very cruel. Greg 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, frankly. If someone had bothered to tell me where this should be transwikied to, I would do so. As my psychic powers are clearly not functioning properly, I shall just delete it (as that's what a transwiki vote without suggesting a destination amounts to). Consider it transwikied to oblivion. If you want it restored to transwiki to somewhere other than nowhere, please consider suggesting a destination on my talk page, and make a valid vote in future. Proto::type 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anglo-Saxon surnames

[edit]

Listcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Arbuthnot

[edit]

Non-notable. Ok, he worked in the British Government, I work in the American, do I get an article? -- no, because I don't merit one &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does the fact that the subject was "mentioned in documents" concerning notable political figures make him notable? More broadly, in what way/s will expansion prove notability? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - yes it does, see below. - Kittybrewster 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see it, even with the additional sources mentioned in this discussion. Bwithh seems to have hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the sources. To be fair, though, the type of mention he's got seems to be a step up from the kind I thought was meant (namely "one of Peel's secretaries was George Arbuthnot"), although it's still not notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an ordinary civil servant but private secretaries are relatively junior roles and they have no ex officio encyclopedic notability, and this one appears to have just worked for two notable people. Bwithh 00:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He was a major (if not the most important) influence behind the modern form of British bureaucracy. He also influenced British policy on currency, including the setting up of new currencies in Empire dominions, and had far more influence than a mere "private secretary", even in the 19th century British government meaning of that word. His field isn't one that you find a lot of online references about; somebody's going to have to get out some old books and perhaps visit the British Museum to add in any reliable information from secondary sources. He may not be well-known to the 21st century, but he was notable. --Charlene 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already checked Google Books which archives 19th century books from Oxford and Harvard, as well as more recent history books. The only[34] relevant hit is a book by Arbuthnot himself- a retrospective economic analysis at Sir John Peel's 1884 act regulating the issue of banknotes. This does not appear to be a landmark work, nor does it indicate encyclopedic notability for this fellow. You say he was influential but historians from the 19th century til now appear to have overlooked him. It may be that he had significant influence within government departments he worked in - but this does not necessarily make him encyclopedically notable. The same goes for faceless policy wonks within the No.10 Policy Unit in the 21st century who may have significant influence but no high office or exceptional influence. Bwithh 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, the standard work on notable people in British history. If the DNB thinks he's notable enough to write about then we certainly should, with our countless articles on minor modern "celebrities". And as private secretary to a prime minister he is most certainly notable anyway; such people are not minor - many have received knighthoods. -- Necrothesp 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if he appears in the modern DNB, it looks like he's a carry-over from the 19th century edition. Here's the summary article from that version:[35]. Unless his being "an authority of currency questions" can be substantively fleshed out with references to show some significance in economics, I don't see the encyclopedic notability. Article also doesn't mention him ever being a secretary to a Prime Minister. I sympathize with the overpopulation of current day nobodies in Wikipedia, but that's reason for culling, not expanding. Also, from browsing around the summary version, I'm not quite convinced of 19th century DNB's ironclad status as a reference work for notability. Bwithh 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you say, that's the summary. The actual entry is six paragraphs, a relatively substantial article on a "non-notable" person (and much longer than many DNB articles)! -- Necrothesp 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question:Does the DNB remove people once their notability has waned, or do they just leave them in? If it's the latter, his entry merely proves that he had notability in the past, not that that notability continues to this day. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The DNB does not delete articles. But why should a person's notability fade? If they are notable in history then they are notable in history. Nobody appears in the DNB unless they are dead - Who's Who is the reference work on the living, and that includes far, far more people than the DNB. -- Necrothesp 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Surely you know that that is nonsense. Brittany Spears is notable now, will she be in 100 years? Highly unlikely. Jane Fernandes is notable right this minute, will she be in 50 years? No. The 15 minutes of fame concept covers far more people than does longevity of notability. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not nonsense at all, since the DNB does not include articles on living people (didn't I just say that?). Neither of those people would therefore merit an article in the DNB in the first place. They would (if they were British) be judged worthy or unworthy of an article after their deaths, not before. Since their shelf life is indeed likely to be short they are highly unlikely to merit such an article (unless they go on to have lifetime noteworthy careers). Please read what I actually wrote before you comment. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I read what you wrote, and I find this "The DNB does not delete articles. But why should a person's notability fade? If they are notable in history then they are notable in history" to be nonsense. BTW, are you a member of the DNB's editorial board? Are you privy to their methods or to their decisions? How can a person's notability fade? Surely that question was not serious. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I fail to see your reasoning. People's notability fades after they retire from public life, but if they were deemed notable for the DNB in the first place (after they were dead) then how can they be less notable now than they were then? Arbuthnot was included twenty years after his death. He was still considered notable then. Why is he any less notable now? He may be less well-known to the general public now (if he was ever at all well-known to the general public, which is doubtful), but that doesn't make him any less notable to an historian. Wikipedia is not meant to only include people who are well-known today, but people who were significant in their time. It seems to me that you are having trouble with the difference. -- Necrothesp 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of course Britney Spears will be notable in a hundred years. She's a major pop star, and hence will be notable as a major figure in the music scene of the late 20th and early 21st century. If someone is really notable today, they're going to be notable to future researchers trying to understand today.--Prosfilaes 10:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no sources corroborating importance can be found (and I'm doubting they can). Seems like a minor figure, and notability is almost never associative. Also move George Arbuthnot (disambiguation) to George Arbuthnot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but expand, please). Having an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography makes him pass both the pokemon test and the "more-notable-than-random-baseball-player-with-half-a-season-in-a-professional-league" test. up+land 07:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Senior Treasury civil servant, from the days before the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms so politically notable as well. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Catchpole 10:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp, but move to George Arbuthnot (civil servant) for disambiguation. ~~ Phoe talk 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
  • Weak keep If he's in the DNB then I'm willing to believe he's scraping inside the notability and private sec to the PM is hardly any old civil servant as seems to be implied above. Article does really need more detail though and linking into the key decisions of the period so as to make the article useful and informative. Alci12 11:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. If he's notable enough to be in the DNB, he's more than notable enough for Wikipedia. Proteus (Talk) 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important figue in British government. --Marriedtofilm 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References in article appear sufficient to establish that he meets WP:BIO. GRBerry 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. DNB record documents at least a minimum level of notability.--Prosfilaes 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Charlene, Fys, et al. I mean, serious claims have been made here (and not in my opinion satisfactorily refuted) that the man was very influential and notable. Maybe he wasn't; maybe he was only somewhat influential and notable. But does it matter? Either way you have to keep the article. Herostratus 07:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Di Maio

[edit]

Insufficiently notable, contested prod QuiteUnusual 23:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, and contains the kiss of death: "little much is known about him as of yet". NawlinWiki 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wu-san

[edit]

nn blogger. '"Wu-san" "Hello! Project"' returns three Google hits. I would have speedied, but there are many claims of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Day Ever (SpongeBob SquarePants marathon)

[edit]

This an article about marathon for the television show SpongeBob SquarePants. Why would someone want to look for an article about a marathon of a show? There are so many of these. Either delete or merge with The Best Day Ever. Squirepants101 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy is my brothers friend and i had to log out so he could do something(i use my computer so much that he must've accidently had my ip adress on it.--74.128.245.70 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC) chikinpotato11[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saber's Beads

[edit]

Neologism being promoted by the selfsame Saber; original research. Infrogmation 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I understand it (I'm no astronomer) it is quite hard to observe the Moon so close to it's New Moon phase, due to it being close to the Sun (visually). This would explain why it hasn't been noticed earlier (the phenomenon obviously has existed virtually forever, but no one noticed it before). And the Moon get's looked at at a lot, but normally not so close to New Moon, since that is the least interesting period to watch it (why look at a dark surface when you can see it much better one or two weeks later?). Having said all that, I don't really oppose a delete, but not for OR and geocities reasons, but due to lakc of more sources. It can well be argued that one source (Astronomy magazine), even though that is obviously an important one, is not enough to meet WP:V. Fram 13:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into New moon, or else very weak delete until/unless more sources are found. The phenomenon is certainly real, and we should mention it somewhere. As for the name, Fram's links convince me that it's a legitimate neologism used by people other than its namesake, but I still feel we need more evidence that it's really catching on, and that it isn't just an indepently coined name for something with another, more established name. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was not submitted without diligent research. A Virtual Moon Atlas software preview can be simulated between .75 and .95 / 29.25 and 29.45 (days) lunation with maximum penumbra. While the solar eclipse counterpart is initiated by direct sunlight through our moon's valleys, Saber's Beads are first detected by the earliest angular illumination of the mountains. How had this obvious and beautiful phase gone unmentioned for so long? There are at least three possibilities; timing, desire, and recognition. Virtual Moon Atlas software simulations show the best aesthetic window to be 18-22 hours on either side of New Moon. How many clear shots at this exact window does one get over, say, 5 years? Not many. Also, veterans in search of record/near-record thin crescents are often waiting for the challenge of something in the 10-16 hour range to test their skills. In addition, except for the celestial players involved, witnessing an eclipse and hunting a Lunar sliver are very different endeavors. The mindset during the separate events may simply preclude immediate recognition of this more subtle but unmistakably similar phenomenon. Our moon's rugged topography and constant libration will also vary the Beads' appearance, which is further enhanced by associated low-altitude scintillation.[40] In any case, it gives Lunar observers and imagers something new, challenging, and interesting to watch for. If anything, it should be linked to Lunar Phase, Moon, and Observational Astronomy.If the article remains, Mr. Saber will furnish more sources and images as they become available. Thank you. User: Saberscorpx
  • Delete, nothing in the above comment does anything to distinguish this from original research. To be clear, it's a cool phenomenon (if it exists, which I trust it does), but that's not enough to keep it around. AshleyMorton 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 07:00, 1 November 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 was delete - at least, to purge the history. DS 21:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorealism

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold feet

[edit]

Nomination for deletion. Dictionary definition (fails WP:DICDEF) with some unreliable sources - advice column by random estate agent[41] and a press release from a bridal magazine, which don't explain the encyclopedic notability of this term, only that it's used in homebuying and marriage contexts. It's also used in many other contexts, as it just generally means "apprehension or doubt strong enough to prevent a planned course of action". Bwithh 00:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more than a simple dicdef, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. The extra content beyond the dicdef at the moment is both unencyclopedic and in a bad state. How is this more expandable in a verifiable, encyclopedic manner? Bwithh 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few encyclopedic references, to verifiable, reliable source articles, from ABC News and Slate.com. It's a notable term. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a slang term for a very broad category of anxiety. At best it could be a redirect to anxiety. It's not like ambivalence, and its not even like stage fright, which is a very specific condition with medically treatable physiological symptoms. Bwithh 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_28&oldid=1081097613"