- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Jehochman 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Virtutech
Corporate brochure. Does not meet WP:CORP Monkeyman 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP They have had notable press coverage & have partnerships with both IBM and AMD. They are a Swedish company, so someone more knowledgabe about international stock exchanges might also chime in. -- Karnesky 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Press coverage and partnerships are not criteria for 'keep' within
WP:CORP.
Monkeyman 03:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is the first criteria: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." -- Karnesky 03:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Press coverage and partnerships are not criteria for 'keep' within
WP:CORP.
Monkeyman 03:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is an actual article, not a brochure -- Ruby 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Changing to Delete Alexa rank of 468,217, which would be borderline for a bank or insurance company but this is a computer company. -- Ruby 03:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)- The company caters to a small number of very large companies. Of course the Alexa rank will be low, because it's not selling to the masses. Googling "Virtutech": 44,800 hits and the site is PageRank 7. Jehochman 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Karnesky. -- Ter e nc e Ong 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I see no sources cited in the article. If there's notable coverage, then cite it. Otherwise, I don't think it has been demonstrated to meet WP:CORP at this time. savidan (talk) (e@) 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE -- Alphachimp 19:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the point of this nomination. If their software Simics is notable enough to have an article, the company must be at least notable enough to be merged. And Alexa rank seems irrelevant. u p p l a n d 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Simics is notable, therefore Virtutech is as well. — Ruud 01:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 13:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (I have made substantial contributions to the article). Jehochman 18:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to improve the article and added references. Jehochman 18:40, 21 February 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. I don't think anything really needs to be added. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Brayne case
Seems to be a hoax. If it's not it's non-notable and unverifiable. Searches for the two main people in this article come up completely without results. Delete Mak emi 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bundling Gerald Bittans with this.
- Delete Unverifiable -- Ruby 00:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both. obvious, unfunny, hoax. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, hoax. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Treznor 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unsourced, non-article, Test edit most likely. -- Jay( Reply) 03:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax per above. -- light darkness ( talk) 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. dbtfz talk 08:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. --
Samir ∙
T
C
08:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Destroy per nom. --
Death Eater Dan
14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. Compu te r Jo e 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ridiculous. -- Alphachimp 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- delete since that apprears to be the consensus and because it's a hoax — Rickyrab | Talk 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as totally unverifiable. Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:41, 24 February 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. I won't touch Daniel Johnson, however, as several users here seem to have that article well in hand. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Cincy Weather
Delete. Advertisement for an irrelevant website, vanity. Doco 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have also bundled the article about the author ( Daniel Johnson) to be deleted alond with this one. -- Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:VSCA. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ruby 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both. Note that one Dljohnson destroyed a disambiguation page for some notable Daniel Johnson's to create his vanity page - see here. This should be restored, and this self-publicist/vandal/chancer removed from Wikipedia forthwith! Camillus (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. -- Kinu t/ c 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unremarkable spam. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - user 69.61.143.132, I assume owner of page keeps removing AfD notices. -- Tawker 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Rewrite to a more factual, less promo cruft article. If the author isn't willing to do that, well, I guess it will have to be deleted. -- Jay( Reply) 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If I may point out, Daniel Lee Johnson and Daniel Johnson. -- Banana04131 04:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. --
Samir ∙
T
C
08:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --
Death Eater Dan
14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:52, 23 February 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. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sumerain city-state
Basically orphaned article (only link is a misspelled redirect), repeats information in City-State without adding anything which makes a Sumerian city-state different (which it probably wasn't). Hasn't been edited since initial creation and clean-up last October. Delete Mak emi 00:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ruby 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We already have more information than this in our Sumeria article. Unlikely search term so no redirect. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Capitalistroadster. youngamerican ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. No content, redundant of existing article. -- Jay( Reply) 03:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Per A1. --
Samir ∙
T
C
09:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete crap. --
Death Eater Dan
14:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:52, 23 February 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, not speedy delete. Honestly, are people just using "speedy" for emphasis these days? "Delete, and I really mean it, so I'm gonna say speedy"? fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sunreef yachts
Advertisement. Was tagged with PROD, but the creator removed it, so I'm bringing it here. Joyous | Talk 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete outright advertisement. Why do these cheapskates think they can use WP as a site for free advertising? And how many times have we seen "creater removed prod tag? Camillus (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fine with me, they can have five days 'til deletion on PROD or AfD, their choice. -- Ruby 00:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete They can get their own web space to advertise -- Ruby 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, along with their boat's picture. -- Kinu t/ c 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Treznor 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: Article cries yellow pages. -- Jay( Reply) 04:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, ad per nom. Kuru talk 05:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mak emi 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, great ad though, they should post the same on their website. It caught my eye. --
Samir ∙
T
C
09:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --
Death Eater Dan
14:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per nom. Bjones 04:54, 24 February 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. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 09:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Farting sexy
Really dumb advertisement -- Ruby 00:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - advert. While WP is not censored for minors, neither is it a repository for pornography (does that make me a prude? :) Camillus (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising for otherwise non-notable website. -- Kinu t/ c 01:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unremarkable spam. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons above, plus...it smells. PJM 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, smelly. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 02:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy. No need for AfD.
Monkeyman 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC) - Speedy delete: per nom. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy per above. Daniel Case 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per CSD G1 NaconKantari e| t|| c| m 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Waste of quality time even listing it here. -- Jay( Reply) 04:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Deletions are interpreted very narrowly, this is not patent nonsense (CSD:G1) and I am not aware of any precedent for doing speedies on advertising (which can sometimes be a judgment call) -- Ruby 04:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete As per Ruby, not sure what speedy cat this would fall under (cause it's an ad, not nonsense) so STRONG delete. -- light darkness ( talk) 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice, wish it could be speedied. Mak emi 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't know why they feel they need viral advertising. It seems like fart porn should sell itself... savidan (talk) (e@) 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. non-notable website of "hot tooting babes". Cnwb 06:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete'. Piling on -- can we set the AfD record? Herostratus 08:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as close enough to CSD A1/G1 for government work. And Wikipedia. Tagged as such. Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 08:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A1. --
Samir ∙
T
C
09:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. That there is no speedy deletion criterion that covers this points out a flaw in the speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple. - ikkyu2 ( talk) 09:09, 18 February 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.
AkashArora
unofficial entry by some random user 165.69.3.20 06:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
From what i can tell, this is all information (On the Pag) that was fan created. Can a member of BZpower please ask Greg about this article? HHS.student 21:36, 27 December 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. Mailer Diablo 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Desi uncle syndrome
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete No hits on Google. The Professor Ali isn't identified. I don't understand the article, it defines "Desi" (unnecessarily since it could have linked Desi) and sort of defines uncle, but doesn't define what a "desi uncle" or a "desi uncle syndrome" is supposed to be. It also throws in ABCD ( American Born Confused Desi), FOB ( Fresh off the boat), and the neologism ABCA (American Born Confused Arab - two hits on Google) without spelling them out or relating them to the subject. Schizombie 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Schizombie. It doesn't explain the concept, which probably doesn't exist in common parlance anyway. The author Shebazishkhan also has no other contributions to Wikipedia, so this is likely a failed vanity and protologism attempt. -- Kinu t/ c 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete
WP:NOR. What a great neologism, though! I know many people with Desi Uncle Syndrome. --
Samir ∙
T
C
09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kinu. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- the article doesn't explain what it actually means. Arundhati bakshi 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This has to be a joke -- Ruby 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. utcursch | talk 11:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hypothetical disaster
WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) Choess 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This page describes a term; its purpose is not to chronicle predictions. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" guideline does not apply.
- Keep This article only describes the disasters listed, it does not predict them. Storm05 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with List of disasters. This subject is too broad and...well...hypothetical, to be of much use. There also isn't that much meat in this article. It's skin and bones. -- § Hurricane E RIC § Damages archive 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I think the nominator misinterpreted the article. It simply presents various disaster scenarios that have received considerable scientific attention rather than predict when they will happen. — Cuiviénen ( Cuivië) 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup; BJAODN the bit about "Sudden loss of gravity." Daniel Case 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and really, really cleanup. Its full of guesses and suppositions which could be replaced by actual information eg regarding 9+ on richter scale it stated "Many sciencetists doubt that this kind of earthquake will happen". Well, there was that 9.5 in Chile (sorry - forgot the timestamp) Psud 05:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
- Keep: I can't speak to anything else that might justify its deletion, but it certainly doesn't fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". savidan (talk) (e@) 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Oh no! Could we really lose gravity! --
Samir ∙
T
C
09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and add links to gravity-boot merchants; I'm worried now : / . Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, ties well to existing articles of past and future disaster scenarios. Doing a bit of cleanup on it. Weregerbil 09:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as potentially verifiable and not infinite list. Batmanand 12:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It's looking good now thanks to some cleanup. Sad to see the gravity failure gone. Not that I'm planning on putting it back. Psud 12:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Dang, I ran into these: End of civilization and Human extinction. Some overlap here... Weregerbil 14:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with List of Disasters. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the above user means List of disasters. Batmanand | Talk 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but clean up. -- Janke | Talk 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep — Yeah, serious clean-up still needed. Introduction states that "there is no known historical or geological evidence", then the article proceeds to cite evidence of such. The sentence be restricted to recorded historical evidence only. :) — RJH 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Omnibenevolence
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is not referenced, and mostly someone's opinion. Not encyclopedic.
Cuñado
-
Talk 08:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC) - Strong keep - this is an important and widely discussed concept in philosophy and theology. Not a neologism (contrary to what the article currently says). Article is (now) reasonably well-written and cites references. dbtfz talk 08:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- well done with the re-write,
dbtfz. Respectfully suggest withdraw AfD. It's a legitimate entity. --
Samir ∙
T
C
09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A concept that deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not paper. Mostlyharmless 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a neologism created to be parallel with the words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to make it easier to explain the
problem of evil, which I can explain very easily. Q: Why is there evil in the world if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good? A: There are no good people.
BrianGCrawfordMA 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- ... which proves either that there is no God, or that your "if" clause is false, since He created people (per your Book) and could have created them good, knowing in advance that the creation of non-good people would result in vast amounts of avoidable misery. Barno 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- delete - who cares if it's paper or not? This is OR. --- J.Smith 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. A concept in philosophy and theology, etc. See Cal Poly's Phil 342 (Philosophy of Religion) notes on Omnibenevolence and the Divine Command Theory (Prof. Lynch). — ERcheck @ 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Omnibenevolence is one of the top 20 or 30 concepts discussed in virtually every Philosophy 101 class. Hardly a neologism, it is a term/concept used and widely discussed by professional philosophers and theologians, as the recently added bibliography items illustrate. dbtfz talk 23:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good little referenced article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- keep I learnt something new. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat ( talk • contribs)
- Keep The articles on arguments about god need something to link to for a concept of benevolence, and benevolence is some unrelated crap about phrenology. Infinity0 talk 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I think people are missing the point. It doesn't matter if Omnibenevolence is a major theological idea, or if it is taught in a 101 class. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and think whether or not Omnibenevolence has material to make it an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. This can always be moved and linked to Wiktionary. Currently the only encyclopedic information is one single sentence:
- The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity has often been attacked based on the problem of evil and the problem of hell.
- The rest is badly written and actually says that Psalms 18:30 is contradicted by Hebrews.8:6-7. If that's not original research then I don't know what is.
Cuñado
-
Talk 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. While this is an important topic in Christian theology, the idea can be very briefly summarized, and, in fact, is on God, theodicy, the problem of evil, etc. Besides which, while omnibenevolence traditionally is one of the attributes of God, in Christian theology, it generally has been considered only one of the perfections of God. In short, this content belongs elsewhere. Ig0774 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from the other comments above, the term is a neologism used by relatively few people. In the history of theology and the philosophy of religion, the term "benevolence" has been used without problem; "omnibenevolence" seems to have been coined simply in imitation of "omnipotence" and "omniscience". -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Omnibenevolence, though a strange word I admit, has stronger meaning (for lack of a better word...implications? I'm tired) than benevolence alone. Omnibenevolence is a key premise in some formulations of the
Ontological argument for the existence of God. In courses and some primary literature on religious philosophy, the word is used and addressed in and of itself. It deserves an article here, regardless of the quality of the current peice.
Shaggorama 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- One of my main teaching and research areas is the philosophy of religion; the term "omnibenevolence" is of recent coinage (within the last decade or so), and until even more recently was mainly confined to undergraduate esays. Not one of the major writers on the ontological argument, for example, uses the term; they use "goodness", "benevolence", etc. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per ERcheck and Shaggorama.
Barno 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The three sources in the article's Bibliography section are from the mid-1980s. If it weren't for that, I would change my vote to "weak delete per Mel Etitis". Barno 04:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, "last couple of decades". Three citations (two from the same journal) out of literally thousands that don't use the term aren't exactly overwhelming, though. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 23 February 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestforum
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Delete seems like a non-notable website to me J.J.Sagnella 08:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm gay. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, this page is only has 31 link-backs. [15]. Seems fairly unknown. --- J.Smith 11:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisng Forbsey 11:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per my original reasons for requesting speedy deletion, ad, non-notable. American Patriot 1776 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As one of the fastest growing fashion websites on the net we ask you not to delete this page. We are viewed by 20,000 unique users a month and this number is growing exponentially. In addition, our site has some impressive projects which it has done and will continue to do. Honestdave
- Delete with extreme prejudice despite Honest Dave's no doubt altruistic objections. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Its a really useful venue and has experienced explosive growth over the past 6 months and will continue to. If presence of adverts alone is reason to remove a page, then someone should go remove google. Small websites have to pay for themselves, so it seems asinine to list the presence of google adwords as a sole reason for removing a listing in wikipedia
http://www.google.com/search?q=honestforum&sa=N&revid=896041765&qpos=0&oi=revisions_inline
- Above user has very few edits. J.J.Sagnella 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the site! It's not for profit and helps innocent would-be eBay shoppers from being scammed by illegal, counterfeit merchandise.
- Comment Above user has only one edit. J.J.Sagnella 20:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This site is amazingly useful, and full of valuable resources.
- Comment Above user has just 1 edit. J.J.Sagnella 07:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Total votes so far
- Delete- 6 votes
- Keep- 3 anons and the article creator.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Feb. 27, '06 [06:51] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Buzzerquiz
Tagged for prod as not provably extant, contested. Bringing here instead.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, appears to be WP:VSCA. Stifle 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Not convinced it needs deleting, it does exist, probably needs a rename to BuzzerQuiz Jw6aa 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Go to www.buzzerquiz.com, and see the shell of a Web site that is there. All it says is "new site coming soon" and that was back in March 2005. The link is circular, and there is no indication that there is any plans for this organization to conduct any contest of any sort in the near future. This is bollocks, plain and simple. ~~LynnW
- Redirect to
Quiz show or something similar. Too obscure and inactive to have its own article, in my opinion.
BobbyLee 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? It's not a quiz show.
Jw6aa 15:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that's precisely what this article seems to be suggesting it is! What about
Quiz bowl?
BobbyLee 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're reading it wrongly if you think that. It talks about quiz shows but doesn't suggest that BuzzerQuiz is one. BuzzerQuiz quiz tournaments are similar to some quiz shows in format, but from the article it is clear that they are not quiz shows. Jw6aa 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that's precisely what this article seems to be suggesting it is! What about
Quiz bowl?
BobbyLee 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? It's not a quiz show.
Jw6aa 15:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, seems like a case of deletion for the sake of deletion, many people have taken part in BuzzerQuiz tournaments, I consider it notable and something that will be expanded. Jw6aa 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Many? How many?
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have an exact figure, over 100 I think. Jw6aa 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'd say that falls a long way short of notable, myself.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is in terms of quiz in the UK.
Jw6aa 00:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I get just under 1,000 Google hits for Buzzerquiz. It seems like it thrived at one time as described, but I am having trouble finding any information on Buzzerquiz dated later than 2003 or so. I'm thinking that we should mention and link to Buzzerquiz from Quiz bowl, but I maintain that Buzzerquiz on its own does not seem to warrant an entire article. BobbyLee 03:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'd say that falls a long way short of notable, myself.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
- Many? How many?
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
W.marsh 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete 267 Ghits excluding wikipedia and most of those are unconvincing. Doesn't seem to have been more than a concept that didn't fly. Dlyons493 Talk 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was very successful - your assumption is incorrect.
Jw6aa 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- It may have been, but I'm not assuming - I'm Googling. If you can provide us with some good references we can close this as a speedy keep.
Dlyons493
Talk 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- The events were typically over-subscribed. As for references, I'd suggest you talk to people who went to the events. If you want web references, there's probably a few out there, but there's a big world outside the Internet (not all views/information are/is posted on-line). Jw6aa 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- It may have been, but I'm not assuming - I'm Googling. If you can provide us with some good references we can close this as a speedy keep.
Dlyons493
Talk 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was very successful - your assumption is incorrect.
Jw6aa 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as an advert.
BrianGCrawfordMA 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it reads a bit like an advert. I think it needs to be improved rather than deleted. As I said before, I think it's a case of deletion for the sake of deletion. Jw6aa 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I love quiz nights myself but there is no verifiable evidence that these quiz nights were any more notable than the average.
Capitalistroadster 03:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- BuzzerQuiz events are not quiz nights and are on a completely different scale to quiz nights in terms of organisation and the distances travelled for participation. They are also (at the name suggests) buzzer-based, unlike most quiz nights. Jw6aa 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you ask me,
User:Jw6aa has a vested interest in this Buzzerquiz; perhaps he/she's a representative for that organization or something? As far as I'm concerned, mention BuzzerQuiz from the
Quiz bowl page, but no more than that - from all the evidence that has been gleaned by users here, BuzzerQuiz is not so important as to merit its own page.
BobbyLee 12:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like you're talking about evidence from people who appear to have have no direct experience and comments based on google searches. There is more to this than is currently available on the www and thus if you only went by that route, you might form a different view than if you'd actually been to the events. My interest is in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and not deleting things for the sake of deletion. I've been to the events, that is my reason for commenting. I didn't create the article, so I'd imagine I'm not the only person that thinks it is worthy of one. Jw6aa 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or perhaps rename to BuzzerQuiz per my comments in previous listing and all over this page. Jw6aa 14:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Jorge Obregon
Appears to be vanity page for owner of a Travel Agency Ten Dead Chickens 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity page and advertising. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. Creator has removed 'attention' and 'verify' tags twice. Red flag.
Monkeyman 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable article, fails WP:BIO. Stifle 11:37, 21 February 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. D e ath phoenix 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
List of US railfan jargon
Delete Not encylopedic, dictionary definitions WestchesterGuy 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note for closing Admin. Seven delete votes are from users that have made no contribution to wikipedia since July 2005 ( User:ConeyCyclone, User:WashingtonWillie, User:UncleFloyd) and August 2005 ( User:SquirrelKabob , User:Toasthaven2, User:FunkyChicken!, User:Frühstücksdienst) Three more are from very new users ( User:Talain, User:ShyLou, User:JER53Y). -- JJay 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- There's also a List of UK railfan jargon Schizombie 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Incidentially, they seem to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Schizombie 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. Unreferenced. No context. --
Krash (
Talk) 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- A lack of references is not grounds for deletion. Several current Featured Articles lack references. Although their featured status is now being reexamined, they are not being considered for deletion because of it. Slambo (Speak) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete good, focused slang lists. Delightfully encyclopedic. -- JJay 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I realize that this is our nom's first day at wikipedia, but he should have indicated that this list and the British jargon page were spun out after extensive discussion from Railfan. -- JJay 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This is a widespread and notable hobby (
Railfan).
Monkeyman 02:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. While Railfan is notable, WP:WINAD applies to this particular article. If not transwikied, please consider this a delete vote. -- Karnesky 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. For reasons stated in the British railfan jargon debate ("Pages like this have wide and longstanding precedent; see
Computer jargon (created
September 30
2001),
List of baseball jargon (
March 11
2003),
List of lumberjack jargon (
November 4
2003),
Mathematical jargon (
October 5
2004) and
Poker jargon (
April 18
2001) for other examples of this type of article. If this article is deleted for the reasons stated in the nomination, then all of these need to be deleted for the same reason.").
Slambo
(Speak) 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- 'Comment I am going to call for those pages deletion, as they don't belong. Will this make you happy? Frühstücksdienst 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- See also the current
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms, though. --
Karnesky 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Slang Carlossuarez46 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- See also the current
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms, though. --
Karnesky 16:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not relevant because this is not a dictionary definition. Choalbaton 13:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Refer especially to " WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" where lists of definitions, including jargon, are included in dict defs. Unless someone can defend putting this on List of glossaries, it doesn't belong in WP & is better suited for Wiktionary. -- Karnesky 16:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced. Perhaps merging with railfan ariticle would be better? TVXPert 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, just read the damn guidelines. I am also voting against the UK version, too. FunkyChicken! 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination and others. NYTVGuy 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, needless, and seems to go against the policies of the Wikipeida. ShyLou 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's fifth edit -- JJay 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a slang/jargon dictionary, or a list of words. Stifle 11:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Most if not all of the problems with this article can be rectified with a little TLC. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, useful explanation of concepts in rail culture. Kappa 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There are several webpages dotted around the internet with slices of jargon, some with just one or two entries some with more. There is no central respository. As Slambo said, other lists of jargon are accepted, even when we are duplicating effort. This and the UK railfan jargon article were recently spun out from the main railfan article as the two lists were starting to take over. There is also no point in merging the two lists as rail terminology is probably the area where British and American English are the most different. Thryduulf 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just because there are some fan sites on the internet doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedia, especially when people say it doesn't fit its guidelines. JAA01A 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per guideline violations. WashingtonWillie 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Like nearly every other list of slang we keep. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't care how useful it is or how many other web sites have lists, since it violates established Wikipedia policy it should be removed as soon as possible. ConeyCyclone 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT and others. Toasthaven2 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If the article violates the Wikipedia guidelines why shouldn't it be deleted? Those who want to keep it must want to kill the Wikipedia by subverting its rules. That is just wrong!
WestchesterGuy 21:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason I haven't AFD'd the precedents I mention in my vote reason is to avoid making a
WP:POINT. If this article is deleted, the others should be too for the same reason.
Slambo
(Speak) 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think your vote should count. It seems not to make any sense, as you seem to think that just because other things are, this should be. It needs to go just like the others!
Frühstücksdienst 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: user's first edit since August 2005.
Slambo
(Speak) 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: I started editing under another name in August 2005 to avoid deletion wars, since there are some crazy people (like you) out there and I took a break. So sue me. You really seem to like this article even though it violates at least two Wikipedia policies, most likely as you seem to be a foamer. Frühstücksdienst 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: user's first edit since August 2005.
Slambo
(Speak) 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think your vote should count. It seems not to make any sense, as you seem to think that just because other things are, this should be. It needs to go just like the others!
Frühstücksdienst 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason I haven't AFD'd the precedents I mention in my vote reason is to avoid making a
WP:POINT. If this article is deleted, the others should be too for the same reason.
Slambo
(Speak) 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It goes against the rules so bye-bye. And all the other jargon lists should meet the same fate. Frühstücksdienst 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy!
Frühstücksdienst 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- replied on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (2nd nomination). Slambo (Speak) 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per FunkyChicken! SquirrelKabob 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WINAD makes this seem pretty cut and dry. -- Talain 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WINAD JER53Y 23:33, 25 February 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 all. I won't protect the deleted pages because these pages haven't been deleted then recreated. I have no prejudice against a future page protection if users recreate these articles after deletion. -- D e ath phoenix 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ruin Mist, The Kingdoms and the Elves, In the Service of Dragons, Ruin Mist Chronicles, King's Mate, Doamanse, Magic Lands, List of Ruin Mist characters, List of Ruin Mist articles, The Alders, The Tyranths, The Brodsts, The Duardins, The Rivens, The De Vits, The Fraddylwickes, Adrynne, The Froen d'Gas, Amir & Ky'el, Elves (Ruin Mist), Eagle Lords (Ruin Mist), Titans (Ruin Mist), Dragons (Ruin Mist), The Tabborraths
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek
Please note: This AFD applies to a large number of pages. There are also various redirect pages (eg, Ruinmist) not listed; a vote to delete the lot will be interpreted as including those.
This one is a bit odd, so please bear with me. Basically, Robert Stanek is an almost entirely non-notable author, with hordes of obscure fantasy books coming from a small press, which he may or may not control. But he has a very good PR machine, which makes him seem like a major author; dedicated fans fill Amazon with glowing reviews, vaguely threatening 'legal' letters mysteriously get sent to places that mention that his books are not very good, and so forth. And in December, this PR machine hit Wikipedia; see WP:AN. Hordes of links to his material from unrelated pages; hordes of pages on his stuff. A lot of the cruftier stuff got trimmed then - I know, I did some - and we left it.
Last night, a couple of the authors of these pages started blanking Talk:Robert Stanek, demanding that comments suggesting astroturfing were removed. Fun ensued; see WP:AN/I. So I got to thinking about our pages on his works... hence, this AFD. I've been reflecting on these articles, and they're just not worth keeping.
- I'd be uneasy with anything running to this detail on a "real" novel... and as it is, given the obscurity of Stanek's books, I really feel we're just being used for astroturfing. WP:NOT a soapbox; astroturfing is self-promotion in all but name, IME. It's certainly not motivated by improving the encyclopedia.
- The obscurity of Stanek's work means that these pages will likely suffer the fate of vanity pages - even if they weren't created by him, they are of interest to a very small number of people, and will likely be left unmaintained for long periods. Many of them haven't been touched at all since the frenzy of creation, with the rest maybe getting a typo fixed or a link disambiguated.
- Merging and redirecting without going to AFD was possible, but I know that would just result in me being yelled at (you should see Talk:Robert Stanek), and trying to see if community consensus agreed with me seemed smarter. Plus, this way I get to shift the buck to "Wikipedia". :-)
- The books are, IME, non-notable... but due to the nature of the situation that's hotly debated. It is something to bear in mind, though.
Thoughts? I do feel we'd be better off without them. Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've added The Tabborraths, which I missed earlier. Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- User:Eakers4 added Robert Stanek to the list of deletions here. I feel it needs to be considered seperately - very different arguments for deletion apply to it (and I for one am ambivalent over deleting it). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek.
- Delete the lot! Off with their heads! Egregiously non-notable vanity articles. Zora 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this entire self-published "universe" -- Ruby 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity articles. Moe ε 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all; God will know His own. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot. Dlyons493 Talk 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per all above. -- Kinu t/ c 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Expunge with flame
ALKIVAR
™
00:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - Delete all, as above. -- Carnildo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Robert Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. (Heh. "Astroturfing" - must remember that...) Grutness... wha? 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, self-promotion, no context, unmaintainable, waste of time, et alii. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- verify: This deletion is out of process. I didn't even see a verify sign or a sources need. Come back once that's been done and please take a look at WP:DENSE. -- CyclePat 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I confess to being quite baffled by a) what the link to m:Don't be dense is meant to tell me, and b) where this specific process to which you refer sprang from when I wasn't looking... Shimgray | talk | 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Deleteaggressive self-promotion/aggressive fancruft, take your pick. -- Calton | Talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)- Clarification: Redirect Ruin Mist, The Kingdoms and the Elves, In the Service of Dragons, and Ruin Mist Chronicles to Robert Stanek; Delete with extreme prejudice everything else. -- Calton | Talk 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Calling the fiction of this author "obscure" would be elevating its position far above what it deserves, and it's clear from my following of the backtrails and other contributions of his supporters/sockpuppets earlier today that their ONLY contributions outside his specific topics have been to weasel references into other non-related topics. This disease is already rampant on Amazon and Usenet - It's pure astroturf, it has no business here.69.213.249.15 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) New perm ID Synthfilker 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, note that the "author" topic had a history of either copyright infringement (the posting of the covers of multiple novels without permission of the publisher) or blantant promotion (if the publisher was the individual posting them). I made the edit deleting them just before the start of the current revertwar. 69.213.249.15 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)- Keep, blank, and redirect to Robert Stanek After reading Monicasdude's comments below, I have to agree. Redirect to the author's page, allow a single mention of the fiction (as opposed to a listing of every single edition and variation of each book), perhaps one thumbnailed cover as an example, and there maintain as well the record of the astroturfing here and on Amazon and the attempted supression of/retaliation for bad reviews and commentary questioning the validity of the reviews. 69.213.249.15 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) New perm ID Synthfilker 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Elaboration Thatcher131 has it right, I think. I've been trying to figure out a concise way of saying that myself. There's also going to need to be a general housecleaning to remove astroturf from articles like this: [33], (under the "In Modern Literature" heading, left only to provide an example) Synthfilker 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot! Deepd 04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all of the articles, per nomination. Sandstein 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I still vote delete, but bear in mind that some of the users urging deletion are anonymous or very new, which is odd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. Sandstein 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, blank, and redirect to Robert Stanek. This guy is the Angelyne of the fantasy/sf world and is therefore, for better or worse, notable. The deletion alternative simply makes Wikipedia his silent accomplice (which is why the author's apparent anon/sockpuppets are pushing deletion). Monicasdude 16:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect all? I can see a reason for redirecting, say, his book titles, but there doesn't seem to be any benefit to redirecting things like Titans (Ruin Mist). Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, blank, and redirect, per 69.213.249.15 and Monicasdude. ergot 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blank, redirect and protect pages that are the titles of his books. Delete pages that refer to characters or situations within the books. Thatcher131 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect (to Robert Stanek) and protect book titles; delete character names and monster types. Barno 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- K,B,R per Monicasdude and Barno. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, protect. Pavel Vozenilek 05:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ken Smith Landscape Architect
Seems to be a nn article. <<"ken smith" landscape architect>> gets 5-figure hits on Google, so this might be a borderline notable person. I've never heard of the guy, but then I don't live in his stomping grounds of NY or CA. It needs a solid cleanup if we keep it. Draeco 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Draeco 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wikified it, and vote keep and move to Ken Smith or Ken Smith (landscape architect). DVD+ R/W 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. "ken smith" is going to turn up a ton of google hits regardless of the subject matter.
Monkeyman 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable! TVXPert 15:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, but move as per DVD ::Supergolden:: 13:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the Museum of Modern Art, New York City let him build a rooftop garden for them. Kappa 13:17, 23 February 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. D e ath phoenix 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Safe sex makespan
Mildly funny example of pure bullocks...and it seems it went through AfD once before, according to the talk page, but there is no indication of what the verdict was. -- Ruby 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is the "safe sex" version of the "glove problem", see [34], as Kappa pointed out in the last discussion debate about this topic here. It is a real combinatorics / optimization problem, and the mathematics presented is sound. It would need somebody to check the sources given in the MathWorld link, to find out all the alternate names, and to turn this more into an article about the problem than about wrong solutions for it. At the very least, consider transwiki to an appropriate Wikibook on operations research. Kusma (討論) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)- Comment
DeleteEarlier VfD is at [35] It's certainly the type of problem Operations Research deals withbut I haven't the time to see if it's a real or joke variant. Highly likely to be original research and also apparently is unverifiable.See below. Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- In any event the talk page needs a banner with the final disposition of the debate, or someone will come along and do this a third time. --
Ruby 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Counting up the votes would appear to give it no consensus. I don't know enough about the topic myself, so no vote. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The mathematics is valid, but it definitely needs sources to prove that the contributor didn't simply invent the problem statement on the spot (in which case it would be non-notable original research).
Deco 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Mathworld site has this reference for the glove problem: "Vardi, I. The Condom Problem. Ch. 10 in Computational Recreations in Mathematica. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 203-222, 1991." so (if that is the same thing) there seems to be somebody else giving it a similar name. Kusma (討論) 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- How about rename to Glove problem and list it as a sub section. -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per above. savidan (talk) (e@) 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unless serious references can be found. One man wearing N condoms, and another one starting with no condoms and progressively piling on N condoms left at other women by previous men... Gross... Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like a legitimate—albeit peculiar—problem. But I can't find any legitimate sources on it so it seems to smack of original research. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. One of many
Operations Research problems. This is no more notable than any other.
Monkeyman 02:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep: source it or kill it. -- CyclePat 03:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The problem is mentioned at rec.puzzles Hall of Fame also sci.math Dlyons493 Talk 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Equations are the Devil's sentences. (Unsigned vote by User:BrianGCrawfordMA)
- Keep The problem is notable. I first saw it (in a family-friendly reformulation) in one of Martin Gardner's puzzle books (published in the '80s, at latest) and it's shown up in many places since. — Blotwell 05:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I know nothing abou operations research, and I've heard of this before. On mathworld, it is called the [ Glove Problem]. As to notability: right now, the defacto Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics "notability" criterion is set at a level whereby, if a paper or two has been published on the topic, its notable. For something to be in a book means that there have been dozens of papers at least, and so is clearly notable. Although, ahem, it might be more appropriate to reword this into talking about gloves not condoms. Although I admit the reason I remember hearing of it before was the "gross-out" factor. Actually, think I heard about re-using latex gloves in Soviet hospitals, and maybe 3rd-world hospitals. They certainly reused "disposable" needles. linas 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- So, assuming that nobody rewords it, does it kept the way it is or not?
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since I don't know what a "makespan" is, I suggest moving article to glove problem. The language doesn't concern me much. Wether te content is accurate.... actually, that I did not investigate. At least the problem was posed in a coherent way. linas 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable and recurring topic in operations research/recreational mathemeatics. Kappa 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to glove problem, with redirect from condom problem. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Of course if it is to be renamed to "glove problem" it will have to be reworded. If no one is interested in doing so then it should be renamed to "condom problem" with a redirect from "glove problem". Paul August ☎ 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. This was extremely borderline, but the credo of AfD is "when in doubt, keep". D e ath phoenix 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Automotive design terminology
This is nothing more than a glossary. James084 23:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Move to List of automotive design terms -- Ruby 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. -- Krash ( Talk) 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Glossary.
Monkeyman 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- wiki source: move is possible to wiki source. -- CyclePat 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. TVXPert 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, encyclopedic glossary. Kappa 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; dicdifs are not encyclopedic, and a glossary is nothing but a collection of dicdifs. A glossary is therefore plainly not encyclopedic. -- Aquillion 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Move per Endomion. WP contains numerous lists of jargons of long standing including: List of Computer jargon (created September 30, 2001), List of baseball jargon (March 11, 2003), List of lumberjack jargon (November 4, 2003), Mathematical jargon (October 5, 2004) and Poker jargon (April 18, 2001) I copied the list from the above debate about railfan jargon. We ought to be consistent and the best is to keep all. Carlossuarez46 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Computer jargon, my bad Carlossuarez46 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree that it is best to be consistent. Unfortunately, that does no seem to hold true here. I disagree that it is best to keep a bunch of glossaries in a encyclopaedia. That's what Wiktionary is for. James084 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Pretty useful glossary of terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wiktionary (which is a better match than wiki source). -- Karnesky 06:17, 24 February 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.