Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 12
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ootmat
- Delete: Information does not seem valid, found only one result on yahoo.com, does not seem credible. Phaldo 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Non-notable made-up holiday with a constituency of one. Adrian Lamo 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Adrian. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Rudykog 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense and hoax. Blnguyen 01:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - hoax. Johntex\talk 02:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as bollocks Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete holidaycruft. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable,unverifiable,original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:24Z
- Delete nn, hoax -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 17:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was I can't believe this, but it's a...keep. Johnleemk | Talk 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Monkeys in ships
not sure what to do with this. merge it somewhere, or just delete it? its not very encyclopedic. BL kiss the lizard 00:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove votes from AfD pages. The following four votes were removed by User:213.202.181.5:
- Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. --Aaron 01:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Since it's only a sentence I move to just delete it completely. Phaldo 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not quite patent nonsense, but not worth an article either. If anyone wishes they could capture this at British Navy or some such article. Johntex\talk 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- How would someone interested in monkeys find it there? Kappa 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be verified-- Astrokey44|talk 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be given access to this interesting information? Kappa 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Arrr!!! BD2412 T 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - A classic. Zoe\talk 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It can be verified-- Astrokey44|talk 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Used in fiction: [Willis the Pilot by Johnna Spyri] Other mention: "After joining the Navy and before being assigned to his first sub, the sailor adopted a tiny monkey as a pet."[1] and finally the wikipedia article anout the monkey hanger legend also mentions this as practice. Englishrose 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are various references on the talk page. Kappa 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- ok, change my vote to keep then -- Astrokey44|talk 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Important monkey related history. Englishrose 08:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Arrr!!!, per BD2412. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- not sure what to do with it says the nomination.....tell ya what, just leave it alone! keep (possibly rename to something a little less clumsy, but dont ask me what!) Jcuk 10:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Fantastic. --popcorn26 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) This appears to be the second vote in this AfD by User:213.202.181.5. Robin Johnson 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as long as references by Englishrose and the ones on the talk page are included in a reference section in the article. Interesting enough for its own entry. Would feel out of place in a general naval article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - We shouldn't be whitewashing our colored simian history. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, verified, interesting, and the sort of quirky article that makes us stand out as an encyclopaedia. Suggest renaming to Monkeys on ships, however. --Malthusian (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Monkey, in the "as pets" section. Seems to be verifiable information, but I don't think its noteworthy enough in itself to deserve an article. Robin Johnson 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge: with Monkeys, verifyable info but it's the wrong title for an encyclapedic entry. Deathawk 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if Monkeys in space qualifies for its own article, I see no reason Monkeys in ships shouldnt. Both have enough history behind them that a decent article for both could exist. It would needlessly cram content into Monkey to merge it (especially considering later it would need to be spun right back off again). ALKIVAR™
16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC) - STRONG Keep, Brilliant article, all verifiable. --Hermit Crab 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)This user does not exist and appears to be another vote it this AfD by User:213.202.181.5 who also removed votes. Englishrose 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This AfD is simply anti-monkey bias! Stop Anti-Monkey Bias In Wikipedia! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, survived previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailor monkey. Punkmorten 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- um, what happened to the delete votes that were at the start of this afd. I had changed my vote to keep and struck out my comment using <s> but the wording was changed and 3 other delete votes seem to have been removed. [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- User with the IP addy: 213.202.181.5 has disrupted the vote and this afd needs carefully restoring. Englishrose 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Restored into this revision, at top of page. Robin Johnson
- Keep' --Terence Ong Talk 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep please monkeys in ships are important erasing does not make sense Yuckfoo 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The phrase "is thought to have occurred and is rumoured to have lead to" does not give me any confidence that this is actually true. There are no references cited beyond a reference to a fictional Hollywood movie - a medium not known for its historical accuracy. Atrian 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mgm makes some good points for keeping, but many of the keep arguments have been refuted, and I find it persuasive that most of the users favouring a keep have changed their minds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Stacey Cochran
Delete, Autobiographical vanity page Will 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite Published author [4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A reluctant Keep. Although this is a POV vanity article complete with photos from the family album, Stacey does have a claim to notability, so I say we give him 30 days to rewrite - if not, we delete. Madman 04:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Delete due to this being a vanity page. He certainly seems to know how to spread his name around, but has done nothing notable in my book. Madman 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He is, unfortunately, notable. Crunch 05:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with tags - possibly inappropriate tone. How do we deal with vanity of someone who is notable? -- Astrokey44|talk</ small> 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable author but contents of page require rewrite to bring the tone of the language in-line with encyclopædic standards. -- (aeropagitica)
07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) - Keep, published author with several titles on his name. If you think it needs a rewrite, either tag it for cleanup or do it yourself. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- And while not enough to make someone notable in itself, I think being a finalist for an Isaac Asimov Award makes it a more than average author. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also wrote reviews for Plots with guns (major ezine). - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can't help it that Alexa users aren't reading magazines. - 131.211.210.17 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If he's self-published with a PoD publisher, which do show up on Amazon, does it really count as "published?" -Will 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. He hasn't won any of those awards, and he's only sort of a published author: it's a vanity press[5] (yes, I know notable work can be published this way, but publishing this way does not make one notable--Samuel J. Howard 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- No it's a POD printer. Vanity presses cheat you out of loads of money before printing, Lulu doesn't. Besides, publishing with "a vanity press" doesn't automatically make your book non-notable either. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- either way, the point is the same it's an author mill and publication there says nothing about notability.--Samuel J. Howard 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- delete per Samuel J. Howard. Durova 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with SJH. We are too lenient on these self-authored vanity projects when a vague case for notability can be made. If the subject is notable, let someone else recreate a less noxious entry later on, but in the interim kill this. Eusebeus 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Isaac Asimov award makes him notable. Fight bias against SF writers on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys votetalk 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)- He did not win the award, he was merely a finalist. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am a science fiction reader and I voted to delete. I would also delete any other self-published non-award-winning writer. Durova
- He won an honorable mention for one story in 1998 in a contest for college undergrads. [6] That hardly makes him notable. -Will 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I won four awards in graduate school and was a finalist for others. That doesn't make me notable. Durova 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Changing vote to Neutral per comments on this page (especially the NaNoWriMo spamming). --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, sufficiently notable. I see enough copies of his books on used sites to extrapolate a reasonable print run. -Colin Kimbrell 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. (1) Notability - One can either believe the claim (made on the talk page) of having several times exceeded the limit of 5,000 copies sold, or ask for proof. I believe the claim as per Colin Kimbrell's and my own observations. (2) Autobiographical - this is discouraged but not forbidden. We always have WP:NOR, WP:CITE, etc. so anyone who does not believe what is stated in the article can ask for references from reputable sources. There is a reason why posting an autobiography is discouraged, but it is not impossible to do an acceptable job. And remember, it's just the start - like all editors, Stacey should be prepared for his edits to be mercilessly edited by others. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- You say it's "just a start". On the contrary, the record shows he had edited his autobiography of an article over 30 times starting back in September. He shows up on the History page as 12.214.7.234. Madman 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, if only because Stacey achieved minor notoriety in 2004 for spamming thousands of NaNoWriMo participants. In spite of his unremarkable writing, he is notable for his relentless self-promotion, which should be reflected in the article. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)- Strong delete. Let's not encourage authors of dubious notability to spam their way to the pages of Wikipedia. It's my belief that any vanity pages should be speedy deletions. If you build it, they will come-- and if you truly are notable, surely a reader will create an NPOV page for you. Ipsenaut 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- He's relentlessly defending his notability on the article's Talk page, too. What happened with NaNoWriMo? -Will 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Stacey incurred the wrath of many NaNo users, but I don't recall any official administrative action. I've pasted his spam on the talk page. The best part of the story is his reply to one of his spam victims: "I was just trying to make friends, you jerk." Shoehorn 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changing to Delete -- He continues to revert changes to the page which refer to his notorious spam episode. Since he is unwilling to acknowledge this episode, he doesn't even deserve this much notoriety. Shoehorn 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Author is not published in the traditional sense; his books are available only via a print-on-demand publisher, and there is no verification that he meets the minimum audience standards for author notability. The Asimov award sounds notable, but it's given only to college students who have never published professionally. In fact, it's not clear that he's ever been published professionally -- his almost-prize-winning mystery novel seems to have been turned down by the publisher that sponsored the prize. (His magazine appearances seem to be mostly in semi-professional magazines.) There are thousands of local bands around the US that have bigger followings than this guy does, but they don't get articles. Monicasdude 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No real disagreement; I was responding to the argument that being a "published" author was notable in and of itself. I don't think being "published" through Lulu is evidence of notability because anybody who wants to can be "published" through Lulu. Monicasdude 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd argue four things at this point.
-
- 1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.
- From the article's Talk page: "With regard to the validity of the article, Wikipedia is clear on this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. I have met this criteria several times over the past fifteen years as a writer". We cannot vote away articles per WP:BIO if they pass one or more "inclusion criteria" (though other arguments can be brought forward to delete an article). AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 2.) small-magazines are for writers more like what journals are for academics (see: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics) than like the journals envisioned in WP:BIO
- It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, that explains it. We simply have somewhat different expectations of the outcome of the discussion of this proposed guideline. But I think your point will be difficult to defend as long as the guideline has not reached consensus and I'm also not sure it is consistent with the 5,000 cutoff point (WP:BIO). AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 4.)The previous finalists who seem to have articles in wikipedia have other claims for notability Frank Wu's article says he won a Hugo award, Sean Williams is a New York Times Bestseller List author, Mary Turzillo won a Nebula Award, and Dave Wolverton's case is less clear, but it seems he's won and now judges the Writers of the Future award and his article alleges he holds a (minor) world record.
- --Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, that just wasn't clear to me from a quick examination of the article. Note that this would, IMO, militate against the notability of Cochran, since Wolverton's notability is established apart from this contest finalist status--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.
- Some great edits have been made, but I think the case for notability is weaker than it was when this was first listed. We can't find a precedent for award finalists and he's self-published. This all came up after the original listing on AfD, and some of the original Keep votes were made under the assumption he won those awards and he was truly 'published.' If any are still paying attention to this, coming in and reevaluating might be helpful in getting this wrapped up. -Will 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Seen it too. He placed himself above Pulitzer winners on the list of alumni of his alma mater as an 'award-winning novelist' (we have established he hasn't actually won any awards). He has gone so far as to denigrate esteemed authors (e.g. Philip K. Dick) with completely unfounded comparisons to himself. Ipsenaut 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- He[8] is deleting the spam paragraph:
In November 2004, Cochran won the ire of writers worldwide when he sent private messages to thousands of NaNoWriMo participants, on the NaNoWriMo forum, pleading to place spurious reservations for his books at booksellers so he would be assured a sum of money per reservation. [9]
He produced a new justification for each time he reverted it. I'm not going to push myself over 3RR with this, but if he feels there's a problem, he needs to put up a factual accuracy boilerplate instead of deleting arbitrary paragraphs. Will 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep.At this point, I see nothing left in the entry that is questionable, and his short fiction publications meet the eligibility criteria regardless of whether or not his novels are self-published. I am a new user on Wikipedia and wondered how information was monitored. Now I know, and I'm glad to see that the article has been cleaned up. I believe he is notable, however, and the article should remain. --jlgssk 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have reason to believe the above is a sock puppet account created by the estimable Mr. Cochran, or else someone affiliated with him. Is it typical for new users-- who coincedentally teach writing and research in a college-- to start off their Wikipedia careers with obscure AfD discussion pages, and make no other edits? Ipsenaut 16:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- jlgssk, see WP:AFD: "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." AvB ÷ talk 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [10], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is getting absurd. He changed his name in the above post from 'John G' to 'Susan.' [11] We all forget things occasionally, but I think this is adequate evidence of shenanigans. -Will 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well spotted Will. Sock puppet hadn't signed in so got caught red-handed. Can be added to the article as another example of "harebrained schemes". jlgssk's Keep vote should be disregarded. AvB ÷ talk 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [10], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Susan's my wife. Her vote should be disregarded. You can't imagine how much trouble this has caused her and I today. Please delete the article. Stacey12.214.7.234 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you and retract the "sock puppet" designation. Most other Wikipedians will, however, view Susan as your straw man now... Anyway, the AfD now has to run its course and outright deletion is not possible. But even Adam Curry's article isn't as harsh about his faux pas - it may well serve as the template for moderating the language about your perceived misdeeds later on, should the article be kept. AvB ÷ talk 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, seems notable enough, despite hairbrained schemes. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure vanity: vanity article, vanity edits, and vanity publications. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Note that he never actually won any of the awards cited, he was only a finalist. All of his books are published by a 'vanity press' publisher. The subtext here is that he couldn't find a regular publisher to take him on. Atrian 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Snopperman
NN possible hoax. Snopperman produces two google hits and Vaft Rudner zero. JLaTondre 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 02:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsense content. -- (aeropagitica) 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete we really need to expand WP:CSD to allow speedy deletion of nonsense that while not "patent nonsense" is still a stupid case of complete bollocks Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but they need to be worded in such a way, badly written, but useful info isn't deleted because of it by mistake. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense -- Astrokey44|talk 12:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and if it's an Internet meme I sure as hell ain't heard of it. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:20, 12 January 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taino Pharmacopoeia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was OBVIOUS SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eric Ardissono
Vanity page about editor AnAn 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (obvious). -Jcbarr 04:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. -- (aeropagitica) 07:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Vanity ComputerJoe 08:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD A7 tagged as {{nn-bio}}. Though it's pretty close to CSD A1 / {{nonsense}} too... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Matthew Louis Nichols
Non-notable, vanity, perhaps a hoax even. Blnguyen 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn bio. - Rudykog 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn bio - this is more appropriate to a personal webpage or a blog, not an encyclopædia. -- (aeropagitica) 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete tagged as {{nn-bio}} for CSD A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elle MacGeorge
MOre nonsense from User:Ardissono. Delete on nn/hoax/vanity. Blnguyen 04:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Although, I would like to know if all polar bears are left handed... Wisco 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Random, unverifiable bio-spam. -- (aeropagitica) 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7. (tagged) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate wasSPEEDY --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John william jarrett
hoax/vanity/nn attack? as it claims the person is now on unemployment benefit. not notable in any case. Blnguyen 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, nn bio. --Muchness 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per Muchness. - Rudykog 06:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Non-notable Australian. -- (aeropagitica) 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete tagged for A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Ichiro 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Math Is Fun
Advertising. No establishment of notability. Delete. Blnguyen 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability, its extent of operations and its impact have been established. Blnguyen 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Response Advertising? Other sites such as Cut The Knot have Wikipedia entries and also carry advertising (to pay for hosting costs). And all content is free.
The site is a top-50,000 website according to Alexa (not bad for a math website), is listed in DMOZ, Kids.Gov, the BBC, and thousands of school websites all over the world. On a school day there are over 10,000 visitors.
The site has existed for over 5 Years and is well respected.
Just because you have not heard of it, does not mean it is not a notable website in its area. MathsIsFun 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have nominated Cut the Knot for deletion as well. Perhaps you misunderstood what Blynguyen meant regarding advertizing. The problem is not that you support your site through advertizing, but that you are using wikipedia to advertize your site. See "advertizing" under the "soapbox" section of WP:NOT. - Halidecyphon 10:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You have to explain the extent of its operations, etc, so that people can see why it is important and noteworthy. Blnguyen 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Conditional deleteIt looks like a good cause so I'll be generous: link to some mainstream press coverage or objective endorsement from a respected and impartial source such as a professor of education. Change the tone of the article to something more appropriate. You might persuade me to change my mind. So far the artile fails to meet accepted standards.Durova 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)- Weak keep. Just barely creeps over the bar in the rewritten version. Obvious educational value speaks in its favor. Durova 14:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless media coverage is verified. Doesn't meet WP:WEB without media coverage since Alexa Rank is 53,607 and only 2000 or so forum members. --Pboyd04 05:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Blnguyen, Durova and Pboyd04
- I moved a huge comment to the talk page. Please don't clutter up AfD discussions with section headers and large comments. Rhobite 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was asked by Blnguyen to explain "Extent of Operations" - that is what you moved MathsIsFun 06:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Article needs to provide an explanation as to the notability of the website - media reviews & critical appraisal will be enough to stake a claim as to notability. As it stands, the text tells a researcher nothing. -- (aeropagitica) 07:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have added a list of sites that mention this site, including an independent review, on the discussion page MathsIsFun 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Alexa gives it a 1-week average of 26,000. This is reasonably notable. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep site looks real, but article is useless Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could improve the article? (And, yes, this is indeed a good cause - I get lots of positive feedback) MathsIsFun 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep based on the reviews that were put on the talk page -- Astrokey44|talk 13:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Sounds like a notable and valuable website. I would argue keep even if it didn't meet WP:WEB cause teaching math to kids is oh-so important. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:WEB. Turnstep 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please, explain how it meets WP:WEB. There are three criteria, any one of which implies notability. This website meets none of the three criteria as far as I can tell; it is not 1) the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, 2)winner of an independant award, or 3)distributed through an independant publisher. Please explain your statment or otherwise support your vote, thanks. - Halidecyphon 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is one of only 16 commercial sites recommended for kids by the US Government for "Science and Math" http://www.kids.gov/k_science.htm. That seems notable to me, and meets the spirit of WP:WEB (a "rough guideline"), for an independent award. Turnstep 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your vote... So everything on kids.gov is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I guess I'll go write Barney Cam and Coast Guard Coloring and Activity Books. :-p Halidecyphon 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is one of only 16 commercial sites recommended for kids by the US Government for "Science and Math" http://www.kids.gov/k_science.htm. That seems notable to me, and meets the spirit of WP:WEB (a "rough guideline"), for an independent award. Turnstep 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. It's only had a Alexa rating below 100,000 for about a month. Like the site, glad you put it in DMOZ. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. 2,000. Besides, it's bad policy to do an article on your own website just to get recognition. - Halidecyphon 09:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mitchell Graham Gallinger
nn bio, vanity. Delete.Blnguyen 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 06:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable random human. Violates WP:BIO; vanity. -- (aeropagitica) 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This looks like a very clear case of WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Indeed I think it was exactly this type of article A7 was made for. Since nobody has voted speedy delete yet, I won't delete it myself, but I will tag it as {{nn-bio}}. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - A7-failing high school student. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as CSD A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Nobody voting keep has demonstrated that the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources. Thus, it's original research and by definition cannot stay. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] World Wide Web War I
No vote. Anonymous user 67.103.171.2 nominated this article for deletion, but was unable to complete the nomination due to not being logged in. The anon's reasoning, as posted on the article's talk page, is listed below. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do not think this is a notable article. (Not to mention that it is hardly the first "World Wide Web" war.) I am going to list it AfD. Then we can all come to a consensus. --67.103.171.2 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Not notable, ridiculous self-important title, and (to my understanding) was self-created by those participating in the event. There is nothing here that can't be handled in the eBaum's Controversy section. In fact this article falls well short of already existing information in the other article. 67.103.171.2 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as this is knowledge, albeit knowledge not interesting to some. It should be allowed to stay, just as every other article here. - Loknar
- Comment. It should be noted that we don't allow any article here. Check the CSD and Deletion policy.
SoothingR 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It should be noted that we don't allow any article here. Check the CSD and Deletion policy.
- Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not really a notable event. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to "the Web War to End All Web Wars" or the "Great Web War", since we don't know whether there will be war reparations and resentment over the Treaty of Google leaidng up to a second world wide web war...yet. No, just kidding! Delete. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and BJAODN. It's a battle between two tiny, crappy forums, and they post on Wikipedia calling it the "great world wide web war"? Don't make me laugh. Ambi 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment They're definitely not tiny, and the article claims there are more than two. Crappy? We each have our own things, remember to keep your own biases in check! ;) - Rudykog 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I made this article so that there would be a place for all the information instead of spreading it out between the YTMND and Ebaumsworld articles. Why not migrate all the information over to this one and make it a legitimate page? - Achristl 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I compiled the majority of the information that you want to "migrate" over. Sorry, but no. TheNewMinistry 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just another example of rot-brained Internet "culture". --Agamemnon2 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How exactly are these events notable? The article requires a rewrite to explain this to someone reading about these events for the first time. -- (aeropagitica) 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A well-written article on the subject already exists at this location:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ytmnd#eBaum.27s_World_incident TheNewMinistry 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not because "Internet 'culture'" is "rot-brained," but due to non-notability. Otherwise, simply redirect to existing content at Ytmnd. -Rebelguys2 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Lukas 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom--nixie 08:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm changing my vote to Keep, although I'd advise a rename. The incident itself has become sufficiently notable, but as of this point the name is an embellishment. --Antrophica 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: the name is not common (80 Google hits). The article should at least incorporate information from the YTMND and Ebaumsworld articles which have far more information. — mæstro t/c, 13:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: this article speaks of a relatively small event that some believe will be larger than it is in the future. Avengerx 13:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite --ryan-d 13:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep There have been other uses of the term (as early as 1996 [21] ) - maybe it could be a disambig page with a link to Ytmnd#eBaum.27s_World_incident -- Astrokey44|talk 14:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, forumcruft. Eusebeus 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Maybe, just maybe, there is room in the associated websites' articles to talk about this dispute, but it certainly doesn't deserve the honor of being called a World War. You can't just make up a name for something and put it on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless this somehow gets into real news (or if they invade Poland). FredOrAlive 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I speedily deleted this nonsense a while ago. YTMND got into a nerd/troll fight with EBaum's World; NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. --King of All the Franks 15:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge With eBaumsWorld and similar sites ComputerJoe 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need an article for a small struggle between two websites that lasted for two days.SoothingR 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete per whatever. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's mentioned on different pages, which is redundant. It is quite notable as well, considering the list of sites that took place in it are well known and popular. (IE Newgrounds) --Zeno McDohl 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the article title is OR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is hardly a "small struggle". The "war" is continuing. Tokakeke 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete minor forum fad. Gazpacho 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment this is hardly a "minor forum fad", it's an all out war between two of the biggest sites on the internet. Tokakeke 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is documentation of a legitimately significant occurance, internet history in the making. Records should be kept if anyone is to learn from what happens over this turn of events. Garbage Man 12:57, 12 January 2006
- Keep. This topic is taking over the articles for the associated sites, and, as such, is becoming difficult to follow in that form. Besides, there are articles much more insignifigant than this one that have survived these votes. Also, I would like to point out that the people who are calling these sites "small" and such clearly have no knowledge of this subject and probably should not be voting. Dr Ellipso 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment None of the Keep votes I am seeing offer possible justifications as to why the article "World Wide Web War I" should exist. Who is calling it that? Who made up that name? Wait until the actual World Wide Web War I takes place and then write this article on whatever that happens to be about. I do not know with what weapons World Wide Web War I will be fought, but I do know that World Wide Web War II will be fought with acoustic coupler modems and TTY interfaces. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unimportant "event" whose participants have chosen to give it an arbitrarily pompous name. Lord Bob 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This event has/is garnering a considerable amount of online attention, and is showing itself to play a substantial role in the pressure that's been building concerning legality debates over ebaumsworld material. Kdevoss
- Delete While this is an important event for YTMND it is not important enough to have its own article. The information on the YTMND article is good enough. Plus World Wide Web War I is a very silly sounding name.--Virulent 78 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment It should have its own article, because it's going to be mentioned on the pages of YTMND, eBaum's World, Newgrounds, and so on. So it becomes quite redundant. --Zeno McDohl 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to the info on either the YTMND or eBaum's World article. It was pretty huge deal, had two pretty big websites going at it, and got a ton of attention, but not big enough to constitute its own page. I'd say keep it to the separate pages for now. I've seen this term commonly used for the whole debacle, so a redirect would work. ShadowMan1od 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I got very annoyed jumping between the different articles with information on this Wiki was the first place I came when hearing about this in order to get a un biased view and the lack of centralized article made this hard, it is redundant to have the information on multiple pages when a single centralized article could be created. This event is certainly notable, it involved many notable internet community for example something awful, newgrounds, YTMND and eBaum's World which are all considered sufficed notable to have there own articles. It is to be the subject of at least one radio show (real life not purely internet) and an article for The Inquire. It is also claimed that the FBI are involved, this IMO shows this is not ordinary forum feud. Though I agree that the name might need to be changed in the future I have heard many people calling it WWWW1, along with YTMND-day and the raid. --Elfwood 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I don't know myself if WWWW1 is the absolute best name for this, but it made the most sense to me at the time. YTMND-Day or The Raid refer specifically to the attacks on Ebaums forums on Jan 7 and 8. That event is only part of what's been going on for the last week or so. That's why I named the article WWWW1. - Achristl 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, rename I see a lot of uninformed delete votes. This dispute involves some of the largest English-speaking Internet communities (2chan is freaking huge), with SA having, if I recall correctly, over 60,000 members. *reads* No, make that 70,000. I find the dispariaging remarks about Internet culture to be outright ignorant. If you think that Internet culture is irrelevant, I have seven words for you: all your base are belong to us. The Taped Crusader 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- All Your Base made it to Time Magazine. Has this? Melchoir 05:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If you think that internet culture is irrelevant, I'd like to direct you here. GreatGatsby 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, probably rename and rewrite. This is a notable event and IMO there should be a single location (an article of its own) for information on it. Ergbert 04:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable. Where is the media coverage? Melchoir 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Move/Merge Ebaumsworld, Somethingawful, Fark.com etc are mainstays on the Internet. I'm surprised this issue hasn't showed up on Slashdot personally, but the point is that this could turn into something significant. While I'm not sure how appropriate the title of the article is (I havn't seen it used elsewhere yet) the information is appropriate. EagleFalconn 05:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per this media coverage: [22]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:49Z
- But Rename, suggest something more descriptive and less grandiose like "2006 YTMND-Ebaumsworld Internet war". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:51Z
- Eh, that's a start, but it's a pretty weak source (the author, Nick Farrell, isn't even listed as one of their few contributors) and it doesn't address most of the detail in the article. I'll maintain my vote for now. Melchoir 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge wherever the heck. Or if discussees say this is to be kept as is, definitely rename.(changing vote, see below; the following rambling still stands, IMO.) I think some specific, single-shot issue between two sites hardly is notable enough for an article of its own - this stuff should be documented in the articles for the site(s) in question (or "History of (sitename)" subarticle if we're talking of some really freaking huge site that has a long history, like Slashdot for example - note that I haven't checked if either site has such subarticle and if not, I don't advocate their creation based solely on this incident). And no frigging way this is a "war", unless it's fought by 12-year-olds in their basements of their ancestral birth-homes, in which case it's just mislabeled as such. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)- Comment. It is not just two sites, it is several notable internet sites, including YTMND, 4chan, LUE, LUElinks, Newgrounds, KNova and many others. There is also the fact that it has spilled in to the real world, including FBI involvement and “vandalism” (read a piece of paper on a door) of eBaum's World head office. There is also a real life radio show on this subject, which is going out at Saturday at 3pm Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Though I do support a re-write and a re-name, this AFD should be able weather an article on this topic should stay and not weather this article should stay. --Elfwood 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Those are "notable" now? I haven't even heard of any of these sites except for ebaumsworld and YTMND, and frankly, I wish I had never heard of them, because all they've ever done for me is to cause people to forward me really crappy links to stupid things on websites. And AFD is Articles for Deletion, not Topics for Deletion. This article needs to go. Nobody is calling it "World Wide Web War I". If someone wants to merge some of the information into the relevant articles on these sites, go for it. But this article name is ridiculous and speaks volumes for the trumped up self-importance the sites involved in this spat have. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Some are nn I will admit, but YTMND, LUE (part of gameFAQ), Newgrounds (how could you not have heard of newgrounds I don’t know) and eBaum's World are all very notable. And so is Something Awful if it was involved. My comment about AFD was just meant to mean that the fact that this article is badly named is not a good reason to stop (or make difficult) a future better named article from being created. Also I have heard people call it WWW1 along with the internet war the creator of this article did not make it up, but that dose not stop it being a bad name. --Elfwood 17:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- So apparently the criterion for whether an article should be deleted or not is whether you've heard of the parties involved? If you really haven't heard of forums like Newgrounds or 4chan, that just means that you don't really know enough about this subject to judge whether it's notable. Your comments regarding "crappy links" pretty clearly betray your own bias against the subject matter, so I wonder why you care about this article in the first place. Also, Elfwood is right about the name. I didn't make it up, I just saw that other people have been using it. A re-name is fine with me, but a bad name does not a bad article make. - Achristl 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep It's not really a World Web War, surely, but even then it's a little piece of internet history. Why not just leave it be? User:Youlikeyams? 16:19, 13 January 2006 (GMT)
- Hrrmm, you should fix your vote then, it should read "Delete, it's not really a World Web War." --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You mean it should read "Keep, rename". --Zeno McDohl 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hrrmm, you should fix your vote then, it should read "Delete, it's not really a World Web War." --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no need to merge. This is a minor disruption between two sites that doesn't deserve to be covered. Ral315 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not everything that "merits" a paragraph on The Register merits an article here; cover in the articles on the participants. -- Kbh3rd 16:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. This is hardly non-notable; the incident included a DDoS attack that broke 24 hours of continuous operation, and that's just for starters. This is very important to understanding the impact that eBaum's profiting from others' copyrights has had on the Internet, and beyond that it's an important sociological phenomenon on it's own. Forget Internet culture for a moment. This shows just how far thousands of people will go to protect the rights of someone they barely even know over principle, to the point where they're going to lots of trouble to coordinate without a central communications location. Dismiss it as the petty actions of 12 year olds if you want, but it's clear that it was not. This was the culmination of a long-strained situation that was brought to it's breaking point. It wasn't a needless tantrum; it was an action borne out of the knowledge that nothing else was going to be done. It illustrates several aspects of social dynamics as they relate to the Internet perfectly. Rogue 9 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, those who find internet culture non-notable need to pause a moment and consider the logic there. Why is it not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia with the lofty goal of collating the sum of human knowledge, will it also exclude information on Andora as non-notable since most people in the world wouldnt know where to start looking for it on a map? I'll also add for those whinging about media coverage that I am a journalist and I know for a fact another journalist I am friends with will be devoting his radio show this weekend to the event. The show is on australian radio in Hobart, and is called Chez Geek. There will be a webcast of it in addition to a regular broadcast, but there does seem to be a good chance of it getting /.ed. --Fearghul 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where are you getting "goal of collating the sum of human knowledge"? Verifiability is policy, and notability is tradition around here. Yes, I demand media coverage, because as it stands the article is a load of speculation. What justifies these edits? Who came up with the list " YTMND, 4chan, LUE and sister forum LUElinks, Newgrounds, KNova"? Why should I believe there were "crippling attacks"?
- This AfD seems headed for no consensus, and there is speculation of the appearance of reliable sources in the future. That's fine. Maybe the article will be verifiable in a month. In the meanwhile, I will personally be content with the cleanup tags, as long as the article gets a respectable name. Melchoir 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete In 5 years time, what will this article be worth to anyone? Aside from that, I hardly think this little feud deserves the dubious honour of being the "first" internet war. And to suggest it encompassed the whole WWW is ridiculous. --L T Dangerous 19:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Are you suggesting that the World Wars encompassed every country on the Earth at that time? BocoROTH 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's amusing and tells the story of a well-known event. Needs to be somewhere --User:Anonymous 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This attack is unprecedented in historical terms for the internet, and may represent the way conflicts are eventually handled on the internet when government/law enforcement doesn't get involved......sort of the era of internet vigilantism MPerdomo 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Unprecedented it is not. Forum groups attack eachother all the time. - Rudykog 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, no community has ever crashed a server before over copyright issues, and they certainly didn't call it World Wide Web War I. (props to Astrokey44) Of course, we don't have an article on that incident, because it happened while we weren't looking. Melchoir 19:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to the "Controversy" section of EBaum's World. I merged and redirected a similar article, YTMND Day, to that target a few days ago, and this one should be treated the same way. If we want to spin this off as a separate article once things stabilize, we can do it then, but for now it makes sense to keep all the info on the subject in one place. -Colin Kimbrell 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I think the point was to make this article that centralized source, it is redundant to have the information on Multiple different articles (YTMND, EBaum's World and others) and many people believe this event is notable enough to have its own article. This information will be the same weather it is part of a larger article or a dedicated one, so I see no reason for not creating it now.--Elfwood 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, it's been a day, and the apparent mission of this article is not doing so well. The two camps of redlinked users are not only uninterested in editing each other's articles, they seem uninterested in improving this one. Instead of two redundant articles, there are three. Sigh.... Melchoir 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article was created at 05:23, 12 January 2006 it was then listed for deletion at 06:11, 12 January 2006. People will not want to do what is a lot of work on an article that could be deleted and as shown by the times above they really did not have a chance between the Creation and the listing to do so. If this article survives it should become the main article on this subject with little effort and a link on the pages on all involved parties. Though some one may want to put some thing on talk pages to the effect of put all information about wwww1 (for want of a better name this will do for now) in this article. --Elfwood 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- On the contrary, I nominated a stub immediately upon its creation a few days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three cards and a top hat, and it would have been deleted if a couple of editors hadn't taken the opportunity to improve it, both expanding and citing references. I find that an AfD is the best way to attract positive attention to a failing article on a worthwhile topic (not that I abuse the tag to that end). This AfD is extremely visible and active, and the article remains in the doldrums. Of course, I can't object if you ask others to help out here. Melchoir 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- But its not happing on this article (possibly because people are editing the information on the other pages covering this), take my attempt to get a discussion on a possible new name started, Rudykog said we should wait to see if it survived the AFD, even though if we could show that the name would be changed as soon as we are able it would help the article stay. I would try to edit in some more information but I dont have time with my exams. --Elfwood 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- "wait to see if it survived the AFD"? If that's what the supporters of this article are doing, it's ridiculous. We cannot vote on a hypothetical article that doesn't exist yet; we can vote only on the article we have, and that article ought to go. Melchoir 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, and "WWW War I" is a rather pretentious title for a feud between several borderline-mainstream websites. --El Zilcho 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 00:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or, better, merge and redirect, because no notable source has given this event the title "World Wide Web War I" and there is not enough information to validate an article separate from the ones already existing (i.e. eBaumsWorld controversy section).--vekron 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I know that to some people this may seem boring and stupid, but, as an educated man (I'm not some emo teenager) this is worth noting. If wikipedia can have a page for the movie spaceballs (good movie by the way) it can have an article over a MAJOR INTERNET EVENT. I don't think you guys understand that thousands of people were a part of this. This is the "first ever grand scale" massive strike against a website. Whether you agree or disagree with the attack, that is irrelevant. It is your duty as a provider of information to not exclude something because it is not "pretty" to look at. Life is not always pretty. We cannot plead ignorance to events which do happen. This is real life stuff, and as long as we stick to posting the facts, which will fully come to light given time, these articles are of real merit. --The mk 555 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Spaceballs was a movie produced by a major movie studio. It had a budget and theater take both measured in millions of dollars. How you can even begin to compare this nothing of a conflict to that is beyond me. And if you think this is the "first ever grand scale massive strike against a website" ... where have you been these past few years? Yahoo was taken down by a DDOS. Microsoft was almost taken down by a DDOS. Whitehouse.gov has been DDOS'ed. Compared to this incidents this little forum spat is nothing. Hell, have any of these sites even gone down? And nobody's trying to censor anything or "hide the unprettiness of life". I'm sorry you feel that way. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but merge with EBaum's_World. Not the first "World Wide Web War", nor (barring further developments) worthy of its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceWeasel (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 January 2006.
- Comment May I just remind everyone who's voting "merge" that this article is orders of magnitude inferior to the same content found at either YTMND or EBaum's_World. There's really nothing to merge; you may as well simply vote "delete". Melchoir 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh... I should have guessed that someone would vote "merge" right after I said this. Melchoir 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, with something, at least until there are any more developments in it. --Bky1701 10:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: You have GOT to be kidding me. So someone lies, sends in a nonoriginal work, and suddenly, this is the biggest Internet event in the past 10 years? eBaum's world already has a section on this, YTMND already has a section on this, I frankly think that's more coverage than this deserves. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the point of this article was so that those sections could be removed from the eBaum's world and YTMND articles or at least greatly reduce them and then link to this article. The YTMND-day section on the eBaum’s world and YTMND pages are taking over there article, why should we have 2 separate massive blocks of text on articles covering different topics when we could have one sterilized one.--Elfwood 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with eBaumsworld. If it actually turns out to be something big, perhaps with eBaum being sued, then it should be remade, in my opinion. If it just turns out to be some isolated attacks on each others' servers, no need to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.198.162 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2006.
- Have you read EBaum's World? There's nothing to merge! Melchoir 18:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename. I'll amend my earlier vote; although this is a significant event, it does not encompass the entire World Wide Web. How does "Ebaum's War" sound? -- Garbage Man 11:58, 14 January 2006
- The problem is the Wikipedia policy "no original research". You can't just make up a neologism for something that has happened. The name itself has to be notable or you have to use standard naming syntax, such as "Controversy with eBaum's World". Also, may I point out that calling it "Ebaum's War" is very POV, and actually rather misleading. Let's reserve the word "war" for real wars, okay? A childish spat between various online sites does not qualify as a "war". --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or at least rename. Has anybody notable called this event in this way? David.Monniaux 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No one whatsoever. It's just a name invented on the spot within the past week and no one voting Keep in here seems to realize this. And frankly, I find it rather insulting to even begin to call this spat anything remotely approaching a World War. Millions of people die in World Wars. Sure as hell no one is going to die in this. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry but that is incorrect. I have seen people call it both WWWW1 and the internet war both before the creation of this article. Also a bad name means the page should be re-named not deleted so there is no reason for the keep voters to justify it. --Elfwood 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter at all if you "have seen people call it that". Are these places you saw it verifiable sources? No? It's just some forum posts somewhere? I rest my case. I highly recommend you read up on WP:V. Just because some people online call it that doesn't make it a notable name. And all of the content on this page is already contained in YTMND and eBaums World and the information there is better. There is absolutely no reason to keep this page. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you had bothered to read my comments you would see I want the name changed. I was responding to your erroneous comment that it was made up for this article not that it was a valid name. --Elfwood 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The bad name is simply symptomatic of the problem that the writers of this content are personally involved in it and have no perspective on its importance, along with all the usual problems listed at WP:VANITY, including WP:NOR. Melchoir 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter at all if you "have seen people call it that". Are these places you saw it verifiable sources? No? It's just some forum posts somewhere? I rest my case. I highly recommend you read up on WP:V. Just because some people online call it that doesn't make it a notable name. And all of the content on this page is already contained in YTMND and eBaums World and the information there is better. There is absolutely no reason to keep this page. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry but that is incorrect. I have seen people call it both WWWW1 and the internet war both before the creation of this article. Also a bad name means the page should be re-named not deleted so there is no reason for the keep voters to justify it. --Elfwood 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No one whatsoever. It's just a name invented on the spot within the past week and no one voting Keep in here seems to realize this. And frankly, I find it rather insulting to even begin to call this spat anything remotely approaching a World War. Millions of people die in World Wars. Sure as hell no one is going to die in this. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The situation is notable, however, I don't think it's earned the name. For now, sections on the pages about the relevant sites is fine. If it spreads widely or becomes complex enough that more space is needed to fully describe it, then its own article ("Content Conflict with Ebaumsworld", maybe) for a detailed version would be a good idea. -- Jake 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment It's not being called a world war (lots of people dying); it's being called a World Wide Web war (people fighting on the WWW instead of in real-life). Ergbert 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly rename--this event is notable among certain circles, but they are LARGE circles. User_talk:SkunkyFluffy
- See Special:Contributions/SkunkyFluffy. Melchoir 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, idiocy. Adam Bishop 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia's existence on the World Wide Web makes WWW antics seem very notable to some Wikipedians. This is an illusion. silsor 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, there's just nothing that can be said about this spat that's encyclopedic. This might change if it's covered in Wired or something (and that would give us a name, too) but it isn't. Demi T/C 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and nuke from orbit. Wholly and entirely unencyclopedic. Wow, 70,000 users. There are more people than that in my city, and it's not even the largest city in my county - and certainly not every single thing that happens in my city is encyclopedically notable. The fact that people created great forumdrama is not unique, it is not notable and it is not verifiable by secondary sources. Nor is it in any way the "first" time some people got pissed at each other on forums and started DDOSing each other. Get back to me when someone actually *dies* in this "war." Until then, it's just a bunch of people arguing, and we all know that arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. FCYTravis 01:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for it's own article, unencyclopediac.--Sean|Black 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if the Background section is filled with much more information about what ebaum has done regarding using other's material and claming it as his own so he could make money off of it. Otherwise, it's hard for most people to understand why this seemingly minor theft of an animation was the straw that broke the camel's back and turned this into a real battle.
-
- Also Rename because it's a bit silly to consider it WWW1. -- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Why is this even here? Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Enough information is already given on the YTMND and Ebaum's World pages. Anomaly1 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I still support deletion, but I wonder, if the article does get deleted, can we BJAODN Natalinasmpf's self-reverted warbox? Melchoir 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 06:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22verifiability,+not+truth%22 Melchoir 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- And that's a major problem; there are plenty of lies that can be sourced. An encyclopedia should be in the business of providing truthful information first and foremost. This is not to say that everything that is truthful should be in an encyclopedia, but a policy stating in effect that truth is irrelevant doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Rogue 9 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- My point was rather that truth is not nearly enough. Truth alone is worthless to us. Melchoir 09:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- And that's a major problem; there are plenty of lies that can be sourced. An encyclopedia should be in the business of providing truthful information first and foremost. This is not to say that everything that is truthful should be in an encyclopedia, but a policy stating in effect that truth is irrelevant doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Rogue 9 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - This user votes "Keep" on everything except for patent nonsense and libel. And I would argue that this doesn't exist, at least not under the name "World Wide Web War I". If I throw something together out of clay in five minutes I get to have an article on it because "it exists" and it's not patent nonsense nor libel? That's a ridiculous voting "policy". --Cyde Weys votetalk 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22verifiability,+not+truth%22 Melchoir 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ludicrously puffed-up "war" between groups of people despearately in need of hobbies. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Should be a paragraph in the EBW article, if anything. Jeremy Nimmo 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if not for Wikipedia, I would never know about this "war". Grue 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Uh, isn't that the point of Wikipedia? To teach you about things you don't otherwise know about? - Achristl 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The point? Teaching? I seem to recall something about building an encyclopedia. Melchoir 15:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, that's not the point at all, Achristl. Wikipedia upholds a zero-tolerance policy towards original research. For that simple reason, Wikipedia is not meant for teaching the public things which they otherwise wouldn't know about.SoothingR 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Uh, isn't that the point of Wikipedia? To teach you about things you don't otherwise know about? - Achristl 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this pompousity. It has no business being called a "World War". BallSack 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, having the same info on the articles about the sites is more than enough. 'World wide web war I' is just a random term someone made up and gets 71 google hits. - Bobet 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it is funny.Night at the Opera 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't tell me Eternal September is happening to us. Melchoir 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- that is offensive. Night at the Opera 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please, you want to keep an article becuase it's "funny", and you add cleanup tags to it with the summary "lol, templates for the hell of it". Melchoir 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- take a look here sense of humor. Night at the Opera 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Having a sense of humour is delightful, but I'm not entirely sure how voting based on funniness and throwing on templates because you can helps build an encyclopedia. If this is more your bag, I suggest Uncyclopedia, where a sense of humor is essential to the core aims of the project. Lord Bob 16:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per MPerdomo. -LtNOWIS 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just some arbitrary term someone made up. --W.marsh 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Should be covered, if at all, in the web sites for the individual forums.--SarekOfVulcan 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Let's forget this article ever happened. Ashibaka tock 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A record of this is important
- see Special:Contributions/BlkSwanPres Melchoir 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep! It may not be the at the level of war yet, but such things will happen sometime, and having some reference for scale is important.
-
- see Special:Contributions/24.218.175.1] Melchoir 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This entire stupid "war" is being faught on all sides by self important egotists and is entirely non-notable. All pages relating to it should be speedy deleted on the grounds that wikipedia is not the place to wage "war".
- Delete - Relevent information already posted on the respective entries, no need for a broad page on the sujbect. - Hbdragon88 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Spat already covered in the website articles which doesn't require its own article (and certainly not under this overblown name). --G Rutter 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Name is absurd. - Halidecyphon 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James O'Donnell
This does not seem important enough for an encyclopedia JamesTeterenko 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This has been around long before you, buddy. Who are you to all of a sudden decide whether or not it is significant enough to remain on wikipedia? Get over yourself, this has been here for months and deservedly so. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.comments posted above by 24.185.85.144
- months? 20 days is not even one month. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If this person's writings have been compared favourably to some of the best sports writers alive, the critical assessment should be cited and/or linked to in order for a researcher to look in to this for themselves. As it stands, the article is POV, not Wikified nor does it contain useful research material. -- (aeropagitica) 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks good to me. We'll keep it. I also read the work and I personally would compare it to some of the greatest sportswriters of any era. It is a valuable tool of research in that it has very informative nfl draft articles and the links can be found for his articles on the website. (Lunkwill) 07:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) comments posted above by 24.185.85.144 again
- Delete, and ignore votes by vandal 24.185.85.144 - Lukas 08:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "James O'Donnell" nfl draft gets only 50 hits or so, most of them arent to do with him. Plus the article was created by a user who has been blocked from wikipedia. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's a one-week block for vandalism, not a permanent block (yet). Delete anyway as non-notable, since I'm finding a grand total of one article by this guy. -Colin Kimbrell 20:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable type of person. Stifle 01:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to Abakuá. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iremes
can anyone make heads or tails of this? borderline speedy {{nonsense}} or {{nocontent}}; but maybe I'm missing a cultural reference here... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- See Abakuá - I'd just merge into that. Proto t c 10:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, as per Proto Lukas 10:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per nom. All of the information on this page can be safely contained in Abakuá. -- (aeropagitica) 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 06:11Z
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cheriton Manor
Unreadable and likely copyvio about somethingorother. "In this brief paper, we argue that Alice de Cerutone is most likely..." OR, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unsuitable for wikipedia in its current "cut+pasted" state. --Oscarthecat 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Impenetrable essay. Author needs to rewrite to WP standards, lay the page out according to WP standards, categorise and Wikify as a minimum. Could be moved to the sandbox in the interim if the work is to be undertaken. If left in this state, the textdump should be deleted as it is of use to neither man nor beast. -- (aeropagitica) 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - incomprehensible familyhistorycruft. See also Sir William Brockman. Tearlach 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Original research, possible copyvio from some printed source. Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expecting (Angel episode)
Article does not attempt to make a case for why this particular episode is notable. While marked as a stub, most of it consists of empty sections. This is more appropriate for some Buffyverse wiki. --Wrathchild (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - We have pages for every Angel and Buffy episode, whether particularly notable or not. There is no Wikipedia policy on this. Therefore this, and all other episode, should be kept as a seperate article. --Cooksey 15:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but consensus may be building: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes --Wrathchild (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Needs expanding. But fully expect the legions of Angel/Buffy fans to take up the torch in this respect. --Oscarthecat 15:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand per precedent. 23skidoo 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. per precedent. Policy regarding this show in particular, but all shows, are under development.
- Keep It seems like every episode of every somewhat notable TV show gets its own article. There's nothing we can do. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent. Essexmutant 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a valid episode article, no reason for deletion. Why does the nom seemed surprised that a stub contains empty sections? Turnstep 16:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Other notable series such as the Star Trek franchise, have articles about their invidiual episodes. Angel is a notable Jos Whedon series and it takes time and effort to write episode synopses. -- (aeropagitica) 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nizam (band)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because one of your friends encouraged you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers. |
Non notable band. Members are teenagers with no hits. A Google search turned up nothing relating to the band. Esprit15d 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete HOAX. Ivan Ilin and Alexander Kashev should also be deleted. The information in the article is completely false. Grue 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Grue abakharev 04:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)- I have put Ivan Ilin on AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Ilin abakharev 04:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per Prodigal_ang abakharev 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:54Z
- Delete as nn or hoax Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep The band had a moderate success in Russia, especially in the Volga region cities, although I doubt it has sustained the positions in charts mentioned in the article. Probably should be cleaned up, but kept nevertheless, since Nizam is certainly more popular than other obscure Russian bands mentioned in Wikipedia (Nina & Lena, TEMA (band), Satarial, Severnye Vrata to name but few). Prodigal_ang 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's Prodigal_ang's only edit to Wikipedia.
- Clean-up Should be heavily cleaned up due to some facts that aren't true. The band definitely does exist though, I heard their songs on the radio last year. The site link must be deleted too since it's old and useless. exelcior 21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's User:exelcior's first edit to Wikipedia.
- Delete as unverifiable, non-notable band. Stifle 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can translate this in Russian and keep it in that form since this might really seem nn for users living outside Russia. the beatle 9:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's User:the beatle's first edit to Wikipedia.
- I cleaned the article up, now it's much closer to reality. I think the author himself should work on it, too. exelcior 10:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide at least one link to credible source that proves that this band really exists? I'm from Russia myself, and I'm absolutely certain that this band, even if it does exist, fails WP:MUSIC totally. Grue 10:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's an article about them on sarbc.ru (looks like a Saratov official portal). the beatle 19:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a local website. To be in Wikipedia, band should archieve at least some level of notability outside of their locality. And I wasn't able to find anything on that site (must be that horrible design). Grue 17:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I heard about the band. Maybe it's not that big, but still. I say weak keep or merge with smth similar.
Anthony Ivanoff 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC) - Nuke from orbit, speedily if possible. FCYTravis 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The bottom lip
Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only album was recorded last week, which means it probably hasn't shipped.
- Delete. Gazpacho 18:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD A7 - non-notable band. JHMM13 (T | C)
16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete Text more suited to the band's homepage. In any case they are non-notable, even if they refuse to "align with the zeitgeist". -- (aeropagitica) 18:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete {{nn-band}} alright; tagged Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Klesic
No definition of notoriety, although he appeared in a couple of episodes of the short-lived Space Cadets series. Delete as nn-bio Essexmutant 15:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Extensive presence on IMBD, even in the acting area, as listed on the page. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not exactly an A-list actor, but not exactly non-notable, either. -Rebelguys2 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Rebelguys2. Stifle 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. Stifle 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shorty usa
Non-notable business - is an advert. Localzuk (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Animorganimation
Random word someone made up. 0 google hits. - Bobet 16:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Orphaned deadend article (2 strikes) for a neologism (3 strikes, you're out). --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Random word-salad. This is not even a neologism. -- (aeropagitica) 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a random word, and per Keepsleeping. Stifle 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. Incognito 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- No the result is 8 Keep to 8 Merge .. this is a clear No consensus vote, as such it should be immediately relisted. ALKIVAR™ 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tinkerbell (dog)
Delete: Tinkerbell the dog is not a notable figure. dryguy 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Paris Hilton. Tinkerbell is not a notable enough individual in and of herself. Extraordinary Machine 17:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Paris Hilton. And no creating an article for Britney Spears's dog Bitbit either! --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Paris Hilton. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- mg with Paris Hilton or Butters Stotch Sceptre (Talk) 19:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep - Much as I despise myself for this, see the Talk:Tinkerbell (dog) page, plus the fact that this animal has a bigger IMDB entry than many actors on wikipedia. MNewnham 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Paris Hilton as per Extraordinary Machine. Sliggy 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I want to cut myself for keeping something like this. I feel, however, that the dog is notable enough to merit its own article, seeing as articles do exist for a number of "celebrity" animals and, either way, there's more information on this dog than many actors and actresses themselves. -Rebelguys2 22:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with paris hilton... look this is not Lassie, Mister Ed or Flipper we're talking about here... there is no television series to which this dog is a star... this dog merely was with paris hilton frequently. Would a pair of Paris Hilton's shoes be given an article? They've been just as photographed/filmed. ALKIVAR™ 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- That depends: Did she keep her shoes on while filming the sex tapes? Barno 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per discussion at Talk:Tinkerbell (dog). --Malthusian (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Paris Hilton. --Terence Ong Talk 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep alone notable dog. Grue 20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I figure this way, the cosmos will allow me to vote delete on the next million articles I see. (Seriously though, keep.) Melchoir 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Paris Hilton. I have much to say on the matter, but corporate NDAs keep me from talking specifically about this dog. --Paraphelion 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why merge to Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton is not Tinkerbell.--Hotwiki 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Dog has published a book, made ph famous for being a bad dog owner, appeared in South Park for pete's sake, this dog seems to be pretty close to as worthy of an article as, say, Millie. I was doubtful when I first saw this, but I went browsing and sure enough she's everywhere. Elf | Talk 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, for now. May become less notable over time. --SarekOfVulcan 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mip
NN Neologism/nonsense Fang Aili 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Lukas 17:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to MIPS. bikeable (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nonsense or silly vandalism. PJM 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete don't think this qualifies for speedy as CSD G1. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Recreate redirect to MIPS to prevent recreation. -Rebelguys2 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsense word. -- (aeropagitica) 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Where I come from, MIP is short for "Minor in Possession" (of alcohol). --KJPurscell 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not patent nonsense, and possibly not nonsense at all... but BJAODN it just to be on the safe side. Stifle 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 00:59, 14 January 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.
This article seems to be some sort of slang, but is otherwise irrelevant.Snorgenhorpher 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Koalaology
Neologism. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Circeus 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as dictdef and neologism; not speedyable though Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If this is a real word, cite several usages and transfer the definition to Wiktionary. -- (aeropagitica) 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The scientific name for the Koala family is Phascolarctidae. If there is an -ology of it then it presumably uses that word and not "koala." Just as "ornithology" isn't called "birdology" for example. Although from what I can tell the study of Koalas is simply called "koala research"[42] rather than "Koalaology" or "Phascolarcology."--T. Anthony 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per T. Anthony -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pms clan
Was speedy deleted under WP:CSD A7 (non-notable gorup of people), and undelted as per a discussion at Deletion review. Completing nomination as per consensus on Deletion Review. DES (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete unless notability better established through verifiable sources.DES (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)- Delete. I can't understand why it didn't fit in db-club. -- Mikeblas 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks unnoteworthy. Regardless does not warrant a page of it's own. Meekohi 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per DES. PJM 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the original speedy was probably justified Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Segv11 -Rebelguys2 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. While I generally believe most gaming clubs are not notable, most gaming clubs do not have potential sources like these:
- Jo Twist. "Girl gamers who shoot first, love later", BBC News, 14 February 2005.
- Janelle Brown. "All-Girl Quake Clans Shake Up Boys' World", Wired News, 1997-02-05.
- "Girl Gamers are back in town!", BBC, 17 August 2005.
- Please note that none of these sources are within the mainstream gaming community, this would seem to indicate notability extending to the general population. --Allen3 talk 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Allen3. Unsure overall, and I don't like the idea of gaming clans getting articles, but media exposure is a good thing. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete yet another gaming clan article. News stories above mainly comment on the novelty of female gamers, rather than anything warranting an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep You could walk into any IT department, or anywhere with people who play video games and you find find people who have heard of 'PMS Clan' they are world famous, and deserve a mention. C Johnson - 00:42, 13 January 2006 (GMT)
- Keep. Mainstream media coverage establishes notability. Durova 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Very Weak Keep per Allen3 - though I play games and I've never heard of them -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as notable per the links above. Turnstep 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. First clan article I've seen on here with references from non-gaming publications. "World famous?" I don't know about that, but certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with cleanup. --Terence Ong Talk 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. The media coverage seems sufficient. - Haukur 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep media references establish notablity. maybe a merge would be better though. I'm going to tag this with the ad sticker too for the overly promotional writing. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Girl gamer. PMS clan site has Alexa rank >100,000 and only about 2000 inbound links, but seems significant enough to be covered somewhere. Combining the two would, in my view, make for a better understanding of why the subject of girl gamers is notable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 11:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) - No merge I've already voted 'keep', so I won't re-add that. But I just wanted to say that I'm not keen on the idea of merging the page with 'girl gamers' or 'female gamers'. As I fail to see the significance of a page about female gamers in general. I find the term 'girl gamer' condescending - and as for a page about 'female gamers' what next, a page called 'female mechanics: mechanics who are female' or 'female welders: welders who are female'. Sorry to moan, but apparently, for what it is worth, I feel strongly against a merger with that page, nor indeed see the point of a 'female gamer' page at all as it is too general. The concept of such a page is a bit to bizarre for me - and yes i did read the page too. 18:22, 14 January 2006 (GMT)
- Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic. May benefit from further cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future Problem Solving
is this notable? abstain Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've added some content to the article which should explain its importance. --W.marsh 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep comparable to Destination Imagination MNewnham 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. --Myles Long/cDc 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This appears to be a legitimate academic competition. 250k+ participants across international boundaries makes it notable in scope too. -- (aeropagitica) 23:41, 12 January 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.
- Delete. It certainly does not fit into the New Deal article which is much more sophisticated and complex than this. (and which goves the fascism article the three sentences it deserves. The problem is that people use "fascism" today in a highly negative sense referring to wartime atrocities, but in the 1930s it had a very different technical meaning (re government control of industry). Rjensen 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rick Blatter
Article is not even a Bio, mostly a legal brief and link to external site J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) NB This "article" had already been speedy deleted before on 5 January 2006
- Appears to be a candidate for mayorshit for a Canadian town. The article's a voting form forthe town becoming a micronation. Delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not even WP:BIO material, more nonsense. Not notable. -- (aeropagitica) 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as boules completes :). Laval is a suburb of Montreal, and this article is a bullshit referendum for secession... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is an article in progress. Your FOUL LANGUAGE and your child-like comments are not only against WIKIPEDIA POLICY, but swearing and indecency is also against international internet protocol and policy. In addition to being ILLEGAL! If you would like to be shut down then keep it up.
- You are WELCOME TO DISAGREE as vehemently as you want, that is FREEDOM! But you are not allowed to censor, you are not the SS. Freedom of speech is for everyone... even if YOU do not agree with it.
- Please use civilized, intelligent language and DEBATE the issues. You are WELCOME to make intelligent, contructive comments... but don't make me report you. Unsigned comment by User:24.203.134.111; moved from top of article by CLW
-
- The language in question (WP:BALLS and bullshit) appear quite a lot on AfD, this is not special abuse reserved for this article :). The anon may be right that the're not very WP:CIVIL discussion, but the are not usually meant to be inflamatory. The anon is not correct about foul language (per se, as opposed to incivil discussion) being against WIkipedia Policy... and is certainly incorrect about foul language being against internet policy or the law. Legal threats, however are against Wikipedia policy. See my comment below for more detail on why I voted delete. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopedic soap box. CLW 15:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I think I remember this being deleted once before, except the message was repeated on the bottom in French. -Colin Kimbrell 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment you are correct [46] J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: that would make this eligible for {{db-repost}}; saince even without the French text, this would still be "substantially the same" content. But I think this should run its course in AfD rather than speedy G4, since someone is debating the deletion. Frankly, I sympathise with Canadian cities that want to get out from under the yoke of their provincial governments. (Provincial governments in Canada have a habit of interfering in the municipal politics of their larger cities, and because of the governmental structure, the cities have little power to resist this interference...) Still, this is not a real referendum on a secession that has any chance of being on any ballot in the forseeable future. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia, at least not in its current form. If Laval, Quebec (or Monreal, or Toronto for that matter) ever manage a secession, even from Provincial control, and cease being "creatures of the Province" then I'll eat my words, and we can have an article on Municipal secession in Canada... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- comment you are correct [46] J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per CLW --kingboyk 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Stifle 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Since it's all been said above, i'll echo Segv11 and the anon IP in my reasoning for why this should be deleted -- "Bullshit, Balls, Bullshit, Balls, Bullshit Balls! IN ADDITION TO BEING ILLEGAL! RARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!" :-) Karmafist 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please delete. If it were written in an encyclopedic style, or made sense—I might think differently. However, it's not. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as per CLW Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 11:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Wars: Legacy of the Sith
I'd be surprised if the book even exists. First of all, Galactic Standard Time is measured relative to the Battle of Yavin, not Anakin's death. Secondly, the most current books take place about 30 years ABY; I highly doubt something taking place some 3000 years after that would be approved. Delete. Firestorm 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pretty much no information on the subject in question other than the book is going to be written....No other information on it. G2 Wolf 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find information on this book, unlike most upcoming Star Wars novels. In addition, things often change; for example, Michael Stackpole's Dark Tide series was supposed to be a trilogy but became a duology instead. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, yadda yadda :) -Rebelguys2 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable speculation. Re-create if/when it's published. -Colin Kimbrell 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's a Legacy of the Force series, set about 37 ABY. There's a Legacy of the Jedi novel, set in Count Dooku's youth. There's no evidence on StarWars.com concerning a "... Sith" novel, no novel yet has been set that far forward in the 'history', and a brief Google search for the author comes up mostly with a thirteen year old peace 'activist'. Unverifiable at best, fan-fic more likely. Delete. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Speculation. WP is not a crystal ball. -- (aeropagitica) 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Premature. Wait till a publishing date has been announced. Looks like others have been unable to verify such a book is in progress, otherwise I'd suggest adding a line to whatever article covers licensed Star Wars fiction, but by the look of Saberwyn's comments, appears to be unverifiable right now. 23skidoo 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Almost certainly untrue. If it's verified, than it can stay. -LtNOWIS 02:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:24Z
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Hunchback of Caldecott
Unreferenced and unverified legend, possibly something someone made up in school. Stifle 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Googling for the phrase and variations on it turns up nothing. The name "Caldecott" should also ring a bell or 2... 68.39.174.238 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly-spelt, unreferenced rubbish. If a citation can be provided and the text cleaned up it may be worth keeping. As it is, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP This is a LOCAL rural legend. Find yourselves some books about legends of Rutland + Leicestershire and you'll see it. Just because something is not on google (or the internet as a whole) doesn't mean it isn't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snivellus (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 00:52:22 UTC.
- That's at variance with what you wrote in the article, Snivellus, which was "Lots of book have been written about The Hunchback, but all were destroyed in a fire.". Uncle G 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sorry I didn't know how to do the signature thing. I said books all about it, which were made in the 1800's were destroyed, not new books containing bits of information. --Snivellus 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP I myself have seen The Hunchback, and took a photo, which was unfortunately lost after my camera broke. The Hunchback is not a social person, and it is advised you approach him with caution.- Robert Smythe
- Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. No google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 12:05Z
- Delete as hoax. Quote from the alleged sighter's web diary: "Exams are looming, and the campaign the bring the legend of The Hunchback of Caldecott is gathering pace. Please search for 'The Hunchback of Caldecott' on Wikipedia [...]" ([47]). Not even the 17th-century bishop allegedly involved in a royal assassination plot is verifiable. Obviously just a trick being played on some poor local individual of that name "jamesl" wants to make fun of. Lukas 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Snivellus and Jameslewis have created a series of non notable/hoax articles. This is one of them.--Bill 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. Edgar181 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete currently unverifiable. In fact, it's WP:BALLS. Stifle 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. user:84.65.69.55's contribution to Isle of Arran don't speak well for his being a good-faith contributor. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:30, 13 January 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.
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
