Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 11 August 13 >

Purge server cache
























































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

The result was Delete Mhiji 00:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shineravindra[edit]

Non notable. Jisha C J

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

















































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

The result was Merge/Redirect. Xoloz 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon: Nobita no Doki Doki! Obake Land[edit]

This is a video game which was cancelled before it was ever finished. Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, as it never actually existed. Furthermore, we have no reliable sources on this, and the article is pretty much empty anyway, there being little to say about something that never existed. Note that I am nominating about 20 other articles from the same category of Cancelled Virtual Boy games along with this. They could theoretically all be merged together into List of Virtual Boy games, or a newly created List of Cancelled Virtual Boy games, or just deleted Xyzzyplugh 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles: Interceptor (Virtual Boy), J-League 3D Stadium, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (Virtual Boy), Night Landing, Protious Zone, Shin Nihon Pro Wrestling Gekitou Densetsu, Signal Tatto, Sora Tobu Henry, Strange Animal School, Sundays Point, Virtual Block, Virtual Dodgeball, Virtual Jockey, Virtual League Baseball 2, Wangan Sensen Red City --Xyzzyplugh 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all of the nominations with the proposed List of Cancelled Virtual Boy games (I'm willing to do it if no one else is). SNS 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 01:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Checked all of the above, all are stubs now with no future expansion posibilities. As long as the images can be worked in (for at least the initial merge version), merge. LinaMishima 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, unless there's even more of them and it's gonna get too big, in which case keep only any of which there is actually some good info and merge others. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not any more of them. There never were very many in the first place.--SeizureDog 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, until more information is provided. -AMK152 15:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SNS. — Reinyday, 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect Per the above. rootology (T) 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as the creator of most of those articles I'm find with the decision to merge them into a List of cancelled Virtual Boy games. I had considered it initially when I made them, but I was having trouble figuring out a way to put them on one page. So as long as the infoboxes and images are allowed to make the move safely, I have no qualms. And even though you did not include them in your list, I just need to reinforce that Bound High, Dragon Hopper, and Zero Racer all have plenty of information for their own articles and should stay (and should use {{main}} tags in the new List). Everything else won't be able to get much beyond a couple of lines.--SeizureDog 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnlforum[edit]

Non-notable web forum. This is mostly just recapping the message board's history and notable users. No encyclopedic value. Metros232 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexa ranking of >55,000. ... discospinster talk 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And that's just for the website itself. This article is about the message board on the site. So it's the non-notable forum of a non-notable website. Metros232 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst an Alexa rating of below 100,000 isn't too bad when compared to the entire net (once you take factor in the problems with Alexa ratings), the article is forum vanity with little encyclopedic value. No references or indication that references should exist - and when there's no references possible, I vote to delete. LinaMishima 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NCurse work 14:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed to be put on Wikipedia. -AMK152 15:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An informative and valuable article. To loose it would be a disaster. -- Bpazolli 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed ST47 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is as unencyclopedic as it gets. Wikipedia is not MySpace. JIP | Talk 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metros232. - Duane 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's nn rootology (T) 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum advert.--Jersey Devil 23:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. wikipedia guest 14:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Invalid signature— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.2.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The message board actually has a history of general interest as relevant as nearly any other currently active Internet community. With a proper rewrite, it would be revealed. I am the owner of the site and can work with other veteran members to edit this page. Nvlamakis 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show which aspect(s) of WP:WEB your forum meets and how you intend to show it using reliable sources in this proposed rewrite? Metros232 22:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete for a lot of reasons mentioned below. Snowballed. Only single-purpose accounts have made arguments for keeping this article and there has been too much vandalism/trolling wasting people's time. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-12 20:22Z

New Blogism[edit]

  • Hoax and nonsense. "New Blogism dates back to the Ancient Greeks" - Really? Check out the external link at bottom. Of course, I could be wrong. Mattisse(talk) 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its better nonsense than we usually get though. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come back after you get out of crack rehab. --Xrblsnggt 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst it would be a shame to loose this fine piece of pseudoacademise, there's no references, and wreaks of (whatever that word for invented new terms is) LinaMishima 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced, mostly WP:BALLS. --Kinu t/c 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, non-sense, and unsourced. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LinaMishima – neologisms? Delete per Kinu. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 06:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I would like to defend this piece. First of all, nothing in it is untruthful or nonsense in any way. Secondly, it DOES contain references. I know the term is not (yet?) widely used in the Anglo-American world, but then again I would like to remind you that there are millions of non-native english speakers who also make use of the english version of wiki simply because it's the largest. //edit: I removed the ancient Greek 'joke', you guys. Odoakerston, 12 August 2006
Odakerston is the article's creator (see Special:Contributions/Odoakerston. Srose (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I agree. Very informative and entertaining. Moreover, true in every sense.Deef Gutfreund, 12 August 2006 Comment added by User:85.147.135.20. Forged signature, no such user on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Odoakerston. the term is not (yet?) widely used in the Anglo-American world makes it a neologism if not a protologism on the en WP. I note that there are no interlanguage links on the article, nor does it exist on the nl wikipedia. And Deef_Gutfreund, Verifiability, not truth is the criterion. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't make a nl entry since I figured most dutch people use the english version anyway. Did make one just now, though. --Odoakerston 11:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment user's second voteAfdIsNotAVote(TM). Weregerbil 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops.
  • Delete NCurse work 14:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -AMK152 15:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NFT Ohconfucius 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Percy Nobby Norton uses this very style on his blog nobbynorton.blogspot.com. I believe that this is an important style of writing and that it probably does date back to the ancient greek. However, the ultra-right wing nature of wikipedia will probably mean it will be deleted. What a shame. -- Bpazolli 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the "ultra right wing conspiracy". Percy Nobby Norton is not notable, and "probably does tade back to the ancent greek (sic)" fails WP:V. Resolute 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep Vis-a-vis the old "goes back to the Ancient Greeks"-controversy, I would like to remark that although the claim might be slightly undersubstantialized, this is not really a problem, since we have to see it in its context of New Blogism. Blog-readers still largely prefer to consume texts that are written in the classical "claim-proof" structure, which principally reminds us of mathematics -- which in fact did originate with the Ancient Greeks, no question there. New Blogism is making the point that claim-proof is very much an outdated way of structuring a text and is substituting for it a revolutionary claim-claim-structure, which is currently finding its way upwards in all kinds of intromation (the spelling of this word is very much a topic of dispute) channels all over the world. Giannis Kouros 19:30, 12 August 2006 (CET) No such user; this comment was left by 129.125.104.172 (talk · contribs · count) Srose (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't deleteThough naturally there cannot be many references yet as it concerns such a new phenomenon, I believe it's necessary for a database as big and important as this one to also provide information about new and upcoming movements. The article will automatically become more substantial as time goes by. *Leffe (talk · contribs · logs)
  • -- Leffe, you can't post at the top ahead of my nomination, so I have move your post here.
  • -- Leffe, you cannot remove other people's comments as you did mine (above) -- it is very bad form to do so and if you continue I will have to complain. I restored my comments -- now leave them alone. You cannot manipulate this comment section to fit your will. Mattisse(talk) 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -- I thought it better not to pollute this discussion with private messages and as I had taken notice of yours it seemed best to remove it. I personally see no reason for leaving private messages here, but if you insist on it, be my guest: I can smile at the irony of discussing the relevance of new Wikipedia entries and at the same time entering the premium of "useless content" here by ourselves ;-) Leffe
  • -- Leffe, once again you have messed with the record. You left my signature down here instead of leaving it with my comment. I had to move my signature back to its place. Mattisse(talk) 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoping this phrase becomes notable in the future is not a valid argument to keep it now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If there are no verifiable sources at present, this article should not exist. An article on this phrase could be recreated once it meets these criteria. Resolute 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the comment "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" does not apply since that article pertains to Wikipedia articles of a speculative nature. In this case the article isn't speculative at all, the thing being speculated at is whether or not the phrase will attain any greater popularity than at the present time. Taking into account all the fierce reactions on this page I daresay it will. Giannis Kouros No such user; this comment was left by 129.125.104.172 (talk · contribs · count) Srose (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Upcoming movements" = speculation. No one knows if this term will ever become a movement. Blogs are not reliable sources by Wikipedian standards. Please see WP:NEO. Srose (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, cruft, spam. Also has the word "blog" in it. —ptk✰fgs 19:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense, WP:NOT, etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like crazy per Ptkfgs. More "ludiculous" than "entermative". · rodii · 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering on Speedy delete This is nonsense and a neologism which references a neologism. Burn it and consider BJAODN. Kevin_b_er 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to automobile folklore.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile Customs and Practices[edit]

Original research. Does not belong in encyclopedia. e.g. - "Car Coinage -- There is a practice in New Jersey of throwing coins into a newly purchased car as a sign of good luck." Hummm. Mattisse(talk) 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverified, original research, full of weasel words. Agent 86 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of this (like writing on car windows for graduation) makes sense and I've done myself, but I don't know where you'd find sources for the rest, so it must go.--Kchase T 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it's now getting some good sources.--Kchase T 17:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per OR. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Carcruft 205.157.110.11 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to userspace No references and currently US-centric. References will probably be easily found (I'm busy right now, so I can't go looking), so move to userspace to allow the author to work in references and expand so as to not be US-centric. Will change my vote once there is references in place. LinaMishima 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and keep it's got sources now, which means it should be kept. But the current name is overly convuluted, and should be renamed to the more appropriate automobile folklore LinaMishima 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to userspace per above. It seems like original research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.212.172 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, appears to be original research and lacks verifiability. --Bakanov (talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All this superstition about avoiding accidents. How about just watching the road? --Xrblsnggt 11:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR and no sources Martinp23 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at absolute worst userfy per LinaMishima. Move to something like automobile folklore, and encourage people from other backgrounds and countries to contribute theirs. This is a worthy subject, the current content is not entirely useless, and the article could be improved. Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -AMK152 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I agree with respect to the name change - good idea
  • Strong Keep A great article. In any place that humans gather there will be customs and traditions. It is important that the narrowminded wikipedia administrators understand this. -- Bpazolli 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (conditional) There's a germ/idea of an actually very good article on this idea. Keep, strip, stubbify down to RS, and let it rebuild from good sources. rootology (T) 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for above and add the condition "rename to automobile folklore"? since this would be a more appropriate name in my opinion. LinaMishima 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rootology's conditions. This could be a great article. Many cultures have an equivalent of a St. Chris' medal, for one thing Drett 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this could be a good article, I'd say. Probably could use a retitle (the "practices" part is too broad) but not at all an unreasonable article topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if renamed. Capitalization in the title is inconsistent with WP:MoS (should be all lowercase). Themindset 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, see AfD referenced below.  RasputinAXP  c 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Gamers[edit]

More brilliance from Asad Aleem. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, no context for further expansion.  RasputinAXP  c 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Axe Series[edit]

More brilliance from Asad Aleem. I would prod this, but given author's history of removing prod's with zero explanation, I'm forced to take it here. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. 1ne 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cat flap and doggie door[edit]

Wikipedia is not a pet magazine. The articles have alot of unverified claims. Hardee67 00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These are 2 different articles, I for one will not make one vote for 2 articles, these delete votes need to be separated. Keep Cat flap, delete doggy door. There can be no justification for deleting cat flap or yuou would open the door to a thousand and one other deletions, no encyclopedia would ignore such a subject and it could be argued this is mopre US POV pushinmg of anything that smacks of not being American in the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Someone re-nom these per how to list multiple related topics. Unrelated. SynergeticMaggot 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are related. Both are different types of pet doors. Hardee67 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes but 2 people want you to separate them so there is no reason not to, SqueakBox 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Useful subjects. Georgia guy 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Doggie door exists separately as the Cat flap community is keen on the article remaining under the name 'cat flap'. Cat flap is majoritively well sourced, and doggie door can be easily sourced. These exist in the real world and are rather common, hence appropriate to have in wikipedia. LinaMishima 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment original nominator did mark articles as AfD, but rather understandably, this was removed as suspected vandalism. Recommend being lenient to the remover, as their reasoning is very understandable. LinaMishima 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, AFD is not for fixing content for you - subjects would seem to be obviously notable and have been around for quite some time. Kuru talk 02:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Although I do strongly agree that Wikipedia is not a pet magazine. AdamBiswanger1 02:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep both types of doors a well known and I don't see why they should not be here. A few articles on these subjects also does not make Wikipedia a pet magazine. --Edgelord 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, So the articles have a few things needing citation, that doesn't qualify them for deletion. Dinosaur puppy 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without prejudice to outcome. Is there no generally accepted inclusive term? Pet door, perhaps, which currently serves as a disambiguation page linking to the two articles at hand? Having the cat and dog versions listed seperately when they seem to be fundamentally the same thing seems, well, forkish. Serpent's Choice 05:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (but see extensive comment below)[reply]
    • It seems not. Pet door appears to be an Americanism. This has been discussed at length on Talk:Cat flap. Yesterdays demerges and AfDs, could be seen as just another attempt to move the page against concensus. -- Solipsist 05:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there were five redlinks for cat flap before I created the article a year ago and there are many more links in today. There were no links for 'Pet door' nor 'Doggie door' when doggie door was created as a one line stub last October and put up for delete/merge in November. However, merging doggie door with cat flap has caused no end of trouble. There have been four page move requests, all rejected, and several page moves against concensus. Cat flap is the correct, original term, despite what American authors and dog owners think (see Talk:Cat flap for arguments ad nauseum). Nevertheless we might as well keep the two articles demerged to avoid further bickering. Personally I am getting more than a little tired of putting up with people disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point over this. -- Solipsist 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and it looks like the nominator, User:Hardee67, is acting in bad faith. -- Solipsist 06:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cat flap, weak merge Dog door into Cat flap. The constant pressure to Americanize any articles that have UK-variant names is irritating and harmful. Splitting out dog door from cat flap looks very much like another manoevre along these lines, rather than a good faith topic split, as the many attempts to rename cat flap to an Americanism have otherwise failed. — Matt Crypto 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

§Yikes! I wasn't aware at all of what I was walking into before reading that Talk history. Nevertheless, this POV fork (and that is what it is) has been opposed and defended by tendentious editing on both sides. Fundamentally, it is a dialect debate, with cat flap the admittedly UK-dominant term and doggie door the more familiar for US audiences. Based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the burden is to produce a single article under some name. The manual prefers a single, neutral article title where that is possible, such as stevedore for the docker/longshoreman issue or fixed-wing aircraft to end the aeroplane/airplane debate. Where it is not possible, the first non-stub entry is to take precedence (and the alternative reduced to a redirect), such as the petrol redirect to gasoline.
There is no debate that the cat flap article is the first authored. The question is, or should be, whether that is the appropriate final location. I have lingering concerns from reading the talk page that the repeated consensus regarding the pagemoves has been flawed. Why do I make the bold assumption that the topic has been argued in bad faith? Because the talk pages admit as much. All of the following are from the discussion regarding the original move request, which quickly brought up the suggestion to move to pet door per the manual of style (each from a different author, to avoid overly selecting one person's viewpoint):

"Which could well be the nub of the problem. If it is a British English / American English thing, it should stay at the British English naming — a) for the priority choice of English, and b) since Cat flaps were more than likely invented in England."
"So another page using a British term was lost through American intransigence to seeing "foreign" terms. We ( the non-USians) have to put up with literally thousands of them on the Encyclopaedia."
"I also think removing the American systemic bias is a very important task within wikipedia. There may be other issues than the purely English-American differences in this case that should also be considered but I would describe voting on the basis of removing that particular systemic bias from wikipedia as being responsible voting."

Are there actual cultural differences? Yes, apparently due to large differences in pet culture -- Americans are more likely to have fenced yards and allow dogs easy egress, while British cats are far more likely to be "outdoor cats" with their own access independant access. But, just as the example stevedore article explains the differences in use in the two dialects, a single article under a neutral name could do that here. Way back in that first move debate, User:Waterguy provided at least some evidence that UK companies manufacturing these devices are cognizant of pet door and use it in at least some of their advertising material. The presence or absence of dictionary entries has been the primary sourced justification for preferring cat flap (with the talk on its page grudgingly allowing the parallel construction of dog door after it was resurrected by deletion review), but Wikipedia does not consider dictionaries to be the sole determiners of term validity. After all, Wikipedia's not one of those. Other arguments (on both sides) have been based on frequency of use, but neutral, technically-inclusive terms would seem to take precedent -- both for encyclopediac value and in observation of precedent (such as the fixed-wing aircraft issue).
Clearly, this AfD is specious, bad-faith, and out of process ... but the purpose of AfD is to produce better articles. Surely there is a way to resolve this that won't fan the fires of national language furor? In its current state, I can see no future for this bifurcated article that does not involve a path to RfC or mediation... Serpent's Choice 08:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NCurse work 14:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. -AMK152 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' cat flap, merge doggie door to cat flap. The cat flap is a very important concept and needs to be covered in Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge doggie door into cat flap. Both items are certainly of British origin, and article name should probably reflect that. (Though I'm not sure it would be considered a "very important concept")  :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I would happily delete doggie door and merge into cat flap, but the controversies over the differences are too much of a minefield. Nominating both for deletion, however, is ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. I will merge them after the AfD. — Reinyday, 22:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep How is it even up for AfD? Clean up articles, but these things obviously factually exist and are verifiable. rootology (T) 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep User:Hardee67 is a suspected sockpuppet and has since been indefinately blocked for rampant vandalism. [1]--Jersey Devil 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously being brought up time and time again by a few agitators. SillyWilly 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into Pet door and make Cat flap and Doggie door as re-directs. — Michael J 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is not a pet magazine. It is not a Star Trek episode encyclopedia. It is not an American trainspotting magazine. And yet we have articles about all these things. Why? Because Wikipedia is, ideally, the sum of all human knowledge.--Zaorish 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if there's a content problem, improve rather than delete. Karwynn (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Keep as redirects to pet door per Michael J. Regionalization should be dealt with inside the article, as the two topics are not 'precisely' the same, but definitely related and there would be way too much duplication in two different articles. -- nae'blis 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into pet door, but the notion that these should be deleted is absurd. JDoorjam Talk 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK enough of this. To reiterate. This AfD is in bad faith. You have been trolled. The nominator is most likely a sockpuppet of User:Helicoptor (and quite probably other accounts too). They have previously been involved in moving the Cat flap article against concensus and have caused a significant amount of American POV trolling on othe articles too. The conclusion of this AfD should be to restore the article to the state it was in on the 11 August. -- Solipsist 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, bad faith nom. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School prank[edit]

Original research and things made up in school one day. Hardee67 00:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this was a bad faith nom by a blocked user; however, given that there has since been a delete vote; I didn't want to close it prematurely. Peyna 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, apparent non-good-faith nomination, based on admin's deletion of the AfD template. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gazpacho 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep this is not what "things made up in school one day" is designed to exclude. Silensor 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Konman72 10:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be entirely original research. --Bakanov (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- perfectly acceptable article Martinp23
  • Delete This article isnt worthy for an encylcopedia, we all know what a school prank is, also this article seems to be slightly for pranking, including the various methods seems a lot like instructions to me. (Neostinker 14:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above. NCurse work 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Not OR for the most part. I have been out of school for 25 years but have either been on the giving or receiving end of nearly all of the pranks. Ohconfucius 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep there are lots of citations in the article and easily meets notability requirements hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. Doesn't look very encyclopaedic to me. Too much original research for my liking. Almost implies that there are "official" school pranks. -- Necrothesp 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as the nominator has made no valid arguments (school pranks are well known and easily verifiable). — Reinyday, 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Just because the article has something to do with school doesn't mean that the nominator can pull out WP:NFT. I agree with Reinyday. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a little rewriting. (Is it me or the triggerhappy deleters are really proliferated lately?) Frigo 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Once again Wikipedia snobs show their true colors as Social Control specialists, this information is a knowledge base and can be as rightly pointed out on another page drawn from for articles relating to bullying and playground culture. --Kenscanna 16:57 15th Aug 2006
  • Delete. WP is not a how-to guide ... forward it to Wikibooks. Lincher 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's unwelcome info for some, but information none the less. ThuranX 02:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't look like OR to me, school pranks are a well known phenomenon. Themindset 22:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably interesting article.Park3r 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

It should be sent to Wikibooks as it is a how to guide to pranks in school. Lincher 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeptasia[edit]

Non-notable form of music synthesising with three Google hits. PROD removed with addition of large picture. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as it probably fails WP:MUSIC. It also reads like an advertisement. Ryūlóng 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment it's not an advertisement it's the start of an entry that hasn't been allowed the chance to be just like the dark side of the rainbow entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeptasia (talk • contribs) 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Ryulong. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — fails everything I can think of but am tired of typing out. SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the first page is... Myspace. Ugh. Fails WP:V, among other things. --Kinu t/c 04:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ryūlóng; unremarkable. --Bakanov (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NCurse work 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A great page about an established technique. I support it 110% which means I could backtrack 10% and still be 100% behind it. -- Bpazolli 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thing is, Dark side of the rainbow is classic stoner's watching material, and has such similarities that it's as if the entire album was deliberately mixed to produce the effect. It also, more importantly has references. This does not. LinaMishima 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ryūlóng. — Reinyday, 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah dark side of the rainbow doesn't even come close to this sync and there are more similarities in the lyrics, timing, and presence, and who said "stoner's watching material" isn't relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.19.58 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. First off, there was very little consensus to 'keep' this article in its current form. It is not suitable for a merge into Internet slang, due to the nature of that article. As pointed out below the article is full of original research, and isn't verifiable. One of the sources is a Wikipedia mirror of the article(!) and the others not reliable. Therefore the result of the debate is delete rather than merge. Then comes the question as to where to redirect this to (I should note here that decisions to redirect do not need afd to decide, and therefore if there is consensus to change the redirect destination, that can be done using the article's talk page). I'm redirecting to God (expression) because there is more opportunity to add information to that article, if suitable sources can ever be found. Petros471 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG[edit]

ZOMG was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOMG.

ZOMG! Delete. Not encyclopedic. Hardee67 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is original research, combined with some parts taken from utterly unreliable sources (urban dictionary, usenet messages). Once the content for which we have no reliable sources is taken out, there will be nothing left. Also, this slang term already exists at List of Internet slang phrases, so no need to merge it anywhere. The previous AfD debate had Keep votes where people were saying they didn't want to lose the valuable content. Since the valuable content entirely violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, the previous AfD debate results are crap. Find some reliable sources, or kill this article. --Xyzzyplugh 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Surely you do not hope for professors to spend their time researching on Leet? Leet is a form of online language and has no absolute definition and no way to verify. IMHO though urban dictionary and usenet messages may not be able to provide accurate and neutral sources for other things, they're just the right thing for Leet. By the way, there's not really much to verify. I admit there's some original research, but if you remove them there's still plenty of things that can be kept. Aranherunar 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already covered with the rest of its kin over at leet. Peyna 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Leet does not give a detailed explanation and does not even have a sub-section devoted to it. It merely mentions it when it is describing over-exclamation, which is not exactly the same as "ZOMG". A merge would be better. Aranherunar 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons above --Xnobjafnyy 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Common enough Internet slang, if not keep then merge there. LinaMishima 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God (expression) Dinosaur puppy 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is interesting, and some of it's sourced (Urban Dictionary is OK, considering how tough internet memes are for sources; if the rest can't be sourced, it can be merged or redirected to God (expression) harmlessly. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Urban Dictionary is NOT ok, urban dictionary is just random anonymous people typing in whatever they feel like. Read WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Urban dictionary falls in the same category as the following, from WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". --Xyzzyplugh 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leet is random anonymous people typing in whatever they feel like, too. Leet depends on how you understand them and has no definition - providing what others think is just the right thing.Aranherunar 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xyzzyplugh. Erechtheus 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Internet slang. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Xyzzplugh Dlyons493 Talk 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should onle be at the list of internet slang, it does not deserve its own article Konman72 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment then merge not delete, surely? LinaMishima 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to God (expression) - Iolakana|T 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Laziness to type words out should not be the basis for coining new words. --Xrblsnggt 12:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment actually, in languages it often is. LinaMishima 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment try learning Finnish sometime. Anyhow, NPOV - it's happened, our opinions are irrelevant. --Kizor 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anyway it was interesting. :) NCurse work 14:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • could be true but could equally be a hoax. Doesn't matter, I thik it still fails WP:NEO neo-acro-logism ;-) Strong delete Ohconfucius 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I assure you it's true :) Aranherunar 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into internet slang. This really does not need its own article. Resolute 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xyzzyplugh - David Oberst 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to God (expression) per Kilo-Lima hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to OMG or Internet slang. Not nearly as famous or notable as OMG. We don't need to cover every single Internet slang expression. JIP | Talk 18:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with God (expression), which is the article on OMG. — Reinyday, 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately delete. rootology (T) 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet slang. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOAD, YHBT and delete as WP:NOT any sort of dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to God (expression) - I like the content, but it needs sources, and really isn't distinct enough from OMG to warrant a separate article. Ziggurat 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into something similar, but don't delete. E.g. what about Omgbbq? Nullterminator 10:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ah, good find, I'll Prod that one immediately. --Xyzzyplugh 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Its not really article... Or MERGE into/make a page for l33t speak :D Reedy Boy 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Merge I've seen this article many times on google... and its never had any decent sources. It never mentions the "zOMG" variety either which is the most common one I've seen... RN 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with God (expression). --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Internet slang. Not notable - hardly ever used in comparison to OMG. The brief mention in the Internet slang article ("sometimes "ZOMG!") is enough. -- jeffthejiff 11:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Internet slang, existing mention "sometimes "ZOMG!" is enough LinaMishima 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Leet. ZOMG is the leetified version of OMG. Leet lacks a detailed explanation of it anyways. Aranherunar 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Internet slang per the above. Sandstein 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet slang. 1ne 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. General info about a common internet meme, the kind of article that makes wikipedia such a wonderful place. Themindset 22:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too unreliable to merge. Only properly sourced material should be merged into existing articles. BlueValour 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, then redirect per Kilo-Lima. ~ c. tales //dirty little secrets// 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interesting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.213.43 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for reasons already stated.--GeneralDuke 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep common internet slang. 130.166.81.166 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAuS[edit]

Article about the linux audit subsystem. Has now been tagged with {{importance}} for a few months. I am nominating it for deletion because, well, because today is the day where the cleanup backlog focuses on entries starting with L. There are numerous problems with the article but mostly it is not understandable for the layman and it fails the WP is not an instruction manual policy. Frankly, I don't think it can be salvaged. Possibly redirect to Linux or some more relevant Linux article. Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, I am adding the following in this AfD for the very same reasons:

There are certainly many pages like this which one could handle similarly. I'll try to find some in the backlog in the next few minutes but I suppose that once the discussion here starts it is too late to add pages in it. Pascal.Tesson 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a man page. Peyna 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NCurse work 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carson 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously strong keep If we're deleting things that exist within Linux and other computer systems as parts of them, are we going to go after articles of other "niche" scientific interest that laymen can't likely understand such as Quantum field theory, Schrödinger equation, Planck length, or 1 E-12 m? rootology (T) 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Peyna. And "but X exists" is no reason for keeping any article, each is judged on its merits when it gets to AFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Szvest 01:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Closed early because:[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Page is just a personal attack on the guy. Delete. Hardee67 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep — You've got to be kidding. Theres plenty of citations and sources in there. If its POV, then make in NPOV, dont bring it here for the 10th time. SynergeticMaggot 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This was an attack, which blanked the page here, and was reverted here. SynergeticMaggot 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy J. Rose[edit]

The promotional autobiography of a non-notable musician. The only assertion of notability present is his being on some TV shows, but the only evidence for that is his quite hilarious IMDb bio, itself such a gem of self promotion that we can't remotely trust it. Google turns up no independent evidence whatever to corroborate these claims. I submit that this page is, in essence, unsourced, unverifiable, and functions to advertise a non-notable person. Middenface 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the circular "chain of evidence" - the wikipedia article cites IMDb, and the IMDb article's "official sites" link points to... Wikipedia :) [2]. Middenface 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't just self-promotion, given that he describes his Wikipedia bio as his 'official site', this is practically free web hosting. A few gigs (barely... it says "he has appeared", for all we know he could have been a backing singer for the warmup act) and a couple of TV appearances (see above) do not come close to satisfying our guidelines on notability of musicians. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything I find is all Wikipedia mirrors. The IMDB bio was created by a user who has done absolutely nothing else on IMDB. Peyna 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 03:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Image:Troy2.jpg

Image:DSC00235.jpg User:LeSophisticate uploaded the picture of Troy, with this comment:"This is the great Troy J. Rose." and later added "(This Is My Picture.)" ...

on the IMDB page here it lists Troy's nickname as Le Sophisticate and User:LeSophisticate has only edited 2 pages, neither of them the user's page, and the other one besides Troy J.Rose is a copyvio...

Troy J. Rose's business card says on it: "Wikipedia.org Search: Troy J. Rose" so it seems that he is abusing wikipedia for his own self-promotion.

Troy J. Rose contacted one of our editors ([3]), saying among other things:

"I have looked the article in question over and made sure that it was rewritten to the fullest extent."

and

"I would like the page to stay the same."

and

"I would like my face to be known."

and

"send a message to the creator of the aritcle and do not change the page, I will make sure he changes it myself"

seems to be a fairly translucent case of a vanity page, self-promotion using wikipedia, and original research with no citations or references. Pedant 04:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I've replaced the images above with links to them, since there's no reason to dignify Troy's viral vanity by including them here. :) --Kinu t/c 22:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perilously close to CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 10:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete vanity/spam. I wish I'd looked at the card better and would have speedy delted it then. Also when the article goes take Talk:Troy J. Rose/Temp with it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious vanity page. --Bakanov (talk • contribs) 12:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above WP:NN, soapbox WP:NOT Ohconfucius 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above WP:NN, and soapbox WP:NOR *~Daniel~* ☎ 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Per Peyna. --Corporal Punishment 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page.--Jersey Devil 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete open and shut vanispam. Nothing quite screams "vanispam" like putting the thing on your business card. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete it! However I must let you know since I have read the page I must clear a few things up. I am NOT T.J.Rose! I just chose the name LeSophisticate because that was his nickname. I thought it was cool! He is not a backup singer! I'm sure he would take that as an insult! You all are just mean and jealous and i would like to cancel my account to the Wikipedia. Effective immeadiately!!!--LeSophisticate 05:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable; per comments about IMDB and Wikipedia mirrors. No other Ghits. — ERcheck (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity spam. ThuranX 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Szvest 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed early because:

Girlfriend[edit]

Nothing but a dicdef. Soft redirect to Wiktionary or delete. Hardee67 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The sixth nomination, and the article survived all the previous nominations! Georgia guy 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (edit conflicted!) per the 5 previous AfD and VfD discussions. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly merged and redirected to names of numbers in English. Peyna 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

year pronunciation[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Hardee67 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Interesting subject. Georgia guy 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete because the author (below -- see user:CrazyInSane) has requested deletion. --Hyphen5 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's OR, for one. Also, this theory applies to any number. Should we create a page detailing how people all over the world say their telephone numbers? Peyna 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to OR. Erechtheus 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR. Doesn't include the old-tymie aught, like for 19-aught-6. Balderdash! --Kinu t/c 05:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR -- Whpq 13:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was nominated by the Afd vandal Hardee67. Georgia guy 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is WP:OR no matter who nominated it. Sandstein 16:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain. I can't find any original research in the article. Georgia guy 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is presumed to be OR because it stipulates that a certain pronounciation is "the preferred English language method" and it has no sources for this assumption. Per the second sentence of WP:NOR:
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
-- Sandstein 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the article. Checking it, please note that Google search on "two thousand" "twenty ten" reveals lots of articles that talk about year pronunciation. Georgia guy 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I've also been cleaning up this article more. Check what the article now looks like. Georgia guy 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any substantial difference. There's still not one source cited in the article, and assertions like "Most common pronunciation method" certainly need sources. My vote stands. Sandstein 17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to merge. I merged the table into Names of numbers in English, which this article should be merged with. Georgia guy 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the creator of this article. When I created this article, I intented to find citations but could find none. I agree it is OR, however did not intend to implement AfD myself. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Names of numbers in English, which has already been done. Its rather enclyopedic to know that we, in this day and age, did not pronounce 2006 as two-thousand-six. But with that said, need to verify that this happened. The stuff from before 1900 needs some verification though. Kevin_b_er 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "did not pronounce 2006 as two-thousand-six"? I pronounce it as two-thousand-six, I thought everyone does. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's true. Two thousand (and) six is definitely how 2006 is most commonly pronounced. Voortle 20:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What about pronunciation of room numbers, people's telephone numbers, house numbers etc. Voortle 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nomination--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

irregardless[edit]

"Irregardless" is not a word, irregardless of whether some people use it. It's illogical, as "irr-" and "-less" both mean "not". Hardee67 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is not a forum to argue the English language --Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is interesting to know about non-standard language. Georgia guy 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --WillMak050389 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted, not closed. ViridaeTalk 14:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslight (psychology)[edit]

Has nothing to do with Psychology. A neologism at best. Or perhaps just utter nonsense. Mattisse(talk) 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I struggled with the (psychology) tag, and have no complaints with it being moved to a better suited name, but it seemed to fit because it is a form of psychological abuse. As for it being utter nonsense, I pulled nearly all the information from existing wikipedia articles, see this[4] version of Gaslight and Gaslight (1944 film). Or if you don't like internal references simply googling "gaslighting" will reveal many webpages on the topic, and even a book. Vicarious 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Psychology is a profession with stardardized terms as determined by DSM-IV and other reference works and peer-reviewed articles. You can't just decide to "stick one in" because you think it belongs. If you take the {psychology) off then I don't care what happens to the article. Mattisse(talk) 02:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved content to Gaslighting (a former redirect), speedy delete this article. If Xrblsnggt wants to merge still create a merge suggestion on new page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted Peyna 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Beiser[edit]

non notable teenager thingy --Macarion 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thugaboo[edit]

This was originally crystal-balling when I first started to get rid of it. Since it happened an hour ago, you guys decide. Seems like utterly trival TV prog to me. But then, what do I know.Mattisse(talk) 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks really, really, really awful, but it's a real and verifiable TV program from notable people on a notable network. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's a real TV show, but it hasn't even gotten listed in the IMDb yet. --Metropolitan90 01:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though it is a one-off special, it is on a major network and with major talent behind it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not totally convinced that specials deserve to be considered notable enough for an article, but I'm leaning that way at the moment. Erechtheus 04:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not my tea, but it got a bit of attention back in January when it was announced (see here for PR), and a real show that will air. Nate 09:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Erechtheus. The article was initially in terrible shape and looked like nonsense. Since then its improved, probably enough to be kept. If kept it should be moved to "Thugaboo: Sneaker Madness" Gwernol 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as it is an aired show on a major network. The entire character section, though, was lifted straight from the web site. I've removed it, but that leaves a rather small stub. -- Whpq 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It was a very painful and irritating one-hour special, but it existed. -The Hams 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- I'm inclined to think that one-off specials aren't in themselves sufficiently notable to justify articles. If they create a stir in some way, becoming part of a continuing public debate, that's different. But this could be handled as a graf within an article about its producers. --Christofurio 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the article has been moved to the more correct title of Thugaboo: Sneaker Madness Gwernol 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pilot episode was named "Sneaker Madness", because D-Roc thought up a scheme to make a lot of money selling sneakers. The name of the show is just "Thugaboo".--Dark Tichondrias 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for moving it back. Gwernol 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. This was a really bizarre show, despite its good intentions, and I'm sure we'll see more discussion about it sometime soon. Zagalejo 02:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a verifiable TV program on Nickelodean.-Dark Tichondrias 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It really seems insignificant, and doesn't really need it's own page. It could be relocated to the page on it's creators or something. Generalnonsensecomic 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It isn't a series, merely a few "specials" from what I have read. Should be mentioned on the creator's pages but don't give this garbage an entry of it's own. If it gets picked up for a series, then it would make sense. Vaginsh 04:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because you don't like a certain thing doesn't mean that you need to censor it. Are you hosting this on your server, no you aren't, so why delete it. It's a series that has been aired on Nickelodeon, I had no idea what the hell I was watching when I turned on the TV, but since there was a Wiki article on it I know what it is now.Hypertails 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably the best pilot I've ever watched. I was literally rolling on my couch laughing. But regardless, it's an existent TV show and TV shows are definitely on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.180.112 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Stupid program, but it does exist. Scienceman123 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a show on Nickolodeon, created by the Wayans Brothers. Whether you like it or not has no bearing on the matter. I find it ridiculous that this was singled out for deletion with all the un-notable articles on this site about comics and every single character. ~ Some guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.126.223 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 August 2006
  • keep please it is verifiable television show we do not erase these Yuckfoo 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emporer Nocturna[edit]

an attack on a NN fake emporer thingy --Macarion 01:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A6. Clearly an attack page. --Xrblsnggt 03:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom Konman72 10:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as misspelled attack page. Fan-1967 14:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7. kingboyk 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Decoration (band)[edit]

Delete. Not notable per WP:Music. Official website is on MySpace. The article itself states that "They have yet to achieve any success in Iceland, but remain a cult phenomenon amongst young adults in their hometown." (Their hometown has a population of 9,444.) Prod'ded, but tag removed. ... discospinster talk 01:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band really does have a cult following in my hometown. Is there a minimum of people to qualify as a cult in your book? Certainly not in mine. HerbertG 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. I think this should have been CSD'd instead. Do you really think that anyone would seek this article out and read it? I don't. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one will not tolerate this kind of discrimination. Interior Decoration is an up and coming band in Iceland and you're going to refuse me the right to plug the band? What kind of website are you? I've seen a lot of shitty articles on Wikipedia that somehow slip through and you're gonna speedy delete a perfectly good article? Seriously, I am disgusted by your ethics. HerbertG 02:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Don't tolerate it all you want, we're an encyclopedia, not Variety magazine. Bad articles slipping through the cracks doesn't justify more bad articles. Danny Lilithborne 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, catalyzed by but not based on the above tirade. Yes, we are "going to refuse [you] the right to plug the band"... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, advertising medium, or a crystal ball for a band that fails WP:MUSIC and has no verifiability from reliable sources about its notability. And if you see "a lot of shitty articles" then feel free to nominate those for deletion per WP:AFD. --Kinu t/c 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not speedy though. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines for notability of music at WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately this band doesn't meet any of these requirements and therefore must be deleted, otherwise everyone and their brother could put their bands on Wikipedia. Dinosaur puppy 03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Xaosflux has already deleted the article due to reason: nnbio. Kalani [talk] 07:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asya (singer)[edit]

i dont think the turkish wikipiedia has this article, one sentence, ghits are for other things, so NN --Macarion 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Scooter Club[edit]

Non-noteable. Also WP:OR. And WP:VAIN. Hyphen5 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to notability and OR issues mentioned by nom. Erechtheus 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable local organisation. "Regular Wednesday night meetings of scooter riding, trivia playing, drunkenness, good-natured fighting, occasional nudity, and general jackassery". So, a load of idiots get together, get drunk and ride scooters (sounds like a great combination!). Who cares? -- Necrothesp 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, possible speedy A7 if no assertion of notability is included. --Kinu t/c 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Nickieee 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z the Alien[edit]

New webcomic with no assertion of notability that returns 3 unique Google hits [5], and is featured apparently as one post on one web forum that itself wouldn't meet our inclusion criteria with an Alexa ranking of 718,215 [6]. Appears to fail WP:WEB in spades.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate KnockOut Wrestling[edit]

Prod removed, so brought to AfD for discussion. Small local wrestling promotion with a solitary, single, lonely Google hit[7] - looks non-notable to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all except Spam blog, Photoblog and Vlog. Suggest that those three are nominated as individual AFDs if anyone still wants those deleted. Petros471 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of blogs[edit]

Fundamentally unverifiable. This appears to be, at its heart, a list of neologisms passings themselves off as some sort of established categorization scheme. Even the article's introduction hints at the failure of a list of thsi sort to represent blogging, and, more importantly from Wikipedia's standpoint, breaking the blogosphere into these convenient, content-based packages seems little more than something someone made up on the Net one day. Has required cleanup since May 2006. Cleanup seems unlikely to arrive. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD bundles related articles for deletion along similar reasons, primarily because the terms are dictionary definition entries for neologisms, with no citation or verification besides.
Clubbox is uncited and unverified, and reads, at-best, like advertising material. The article has been the target of vandalism (note the TROLL stub) that has gone uncorrected since 21 April, which does not bode well for its support as more than a neologistic search term. A properly written article would probably be still deletable as dicdef.
Cultural blog is likewise uncited, and consists primarily of a list of blog links. Little-to-no evidence that this rises above neologism. Certaily a dicdef.
Community blog has been tagged unsourced since 19 July. No sources seem to be coming. Article is a dicdef for a neologism, featuring an even more protologistic synonym.
Fictional blog. A cleanup of wording leaves only a dicdef.
Gossip blog. No assertion that the term is in actual use. Point-of-view issues with what stub text is there now.
Online diary is not actually being nominated for AfD in this bundle, as it is already under consideration for a merger to Blog.
Photoblog, tagged unverified since its creation on 6 May. At its heart, a dicdef (the first line of the article). Primary origin of the word itself seems to be the several commercial web domains using the name.
Science blog primarily cites, well, science blogs as proof of its validity, in violation of Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. The Nature article may allow this one to survive, but given its poor sourcing, I am including it in the bundle.
Shock blog. Neologistic dicdef written in anything but NPOV.
Spam blog. Only some of this article even applies to its stated title. Suggest merger of the title-appropriate information to PageRank, Blogger (service), and/or Scraper site, as appropriate, and the other material to Spam in blogs, if needed. This underwent some no-consensus move/merger discussion at a previous time. The phenomenon is real, but I question the term as an article topic (is this neologism in wide use/has it been established as the prefered means of referring to this activity?).
Topical blog, tagged original research, uncited, and inappropriate tone. This is basically a rehash of the Types of blogs entry itself, without the linking.
Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication.
The remainder of the base article requires no action. Travel log already redirects to travelogue, link blog is redlinked, and hobby blog has no linking at all.
Three entries linked from the base article are not being included in this bundled AfD. Moblog appears to have the basis of an actual article, largely due to apparent national Moblog in Singapore. And Corporate blog (redirected from Business blog) has better documentation, as the phenomenon has been responsible for a great deal of policy discussion in the corporate world, and a lot of in-print ink. It could use some cleanup, but appears to meet WP article expectations. Political blog seems as though it should be able to be worked into an acceptable article. The current one needs extensive work, however.
Please note that the related topic Musical Blogs, although not linked in the Types article, is currently under AfD review as well.
  • Delete first article as cruft list. Can't in good faith speak for the rest because I don't feel like looking at them all. --Xrblsnggt 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Vlog as WP:NOR. Vlog needs cleanup. Danny Lilithborne 03:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The parent list is a pile of cruft and none of the article titles seem to have any currency. They're all either neologisms or original research or both. Opabinia regalis 05:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the Types of blogs section in the main Blog article, and delete all. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 07:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spam blog, photoblog and vlog - but delete rest Computerjoe's talk 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spam blog. There are interesting and important differences in characterizing and dealing with spam blogs as compared with general web spam and email spam. Splitting the material and distributing to several articles, as has been suggested, would be a particularly bad idea. The material should remain together. Tim 12:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the others, but I'd at least vote to keep spam blog, as I just found the article very useful in understanding a discussion elsewhere on the Net. Kai MacTane 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spam blog and vlog, delete rest. Nom unfortunately forgot moblog; we'll nominate it another time I guess. --Haakon 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgotten, actually. The moblog article is not much better than the rest, but it makes the claim of a national moblog (using the term) in place in Singapore. I didn't spend the time to check up on the accuracy of that claim, but if a national government has created an officially sanctioned blog (of any sort), that is significant, and if it uses the term, it probably can stand on its own as an article. Probably. Assuming it all checks out, of course. Serpent's Choice 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try this: you forgot Blogcast :-) Haakon 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful and verifiable into main blog article and redirect all. -- Necrothesp 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vlog or redirect to videoblog Videoblog more accurately describes vlog and is more commonly used. There are at least 4 published books with videoblog in the title. Ekai 07:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All What books are you referencing? All books that I know of where written by those within the community and haven't gained acceptance outside of it.Pdelongchamp 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon lists these four books in print with the word 'videoblogging' in the title. There are also two books with 'vlog' in the title. I'm not sure what you mean by 'were written by those in the community and haven't gained acceptance outside of it'. Seems like a broad generalization lacking evidence to me. Ekai 08:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can write a book, register an ISBN number and automatically have it listed on Amazon. All it takes is 200$ and a few clicks on a book publishing website. Show me something that proves these books are notable. Everything is non notable until proven otherwise. Pdelongchamp 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pdelongchamp: If you click on the click I provided above you would see these 4 books come from mainstream book publishers. I don't get the sense that you really are interested in the notability of the subject, but have some personal issue with this. Our votes have been cast, let's move on. Ekai 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You argue that vlog or videoblog isn't a neologism because How-To books were written on it's subject. I can't find anything that says that these are notable books or that the article is well sourced. I consider this article mostly original research as per nom.Pdelongchamp 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spam blog, photoblog and vlog - but delete rest also would suggest redirecting vlog to videoblog. I would also site the number of books on the subject of video blogging.--mmeiser 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I question the notability of the 4 books. I can't find a notable source that acknowledged their existence. See my previous comment.Pdelongchamp 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to refer to Amazon as Ekai did. On top of this I'd also like to point out that a) you're out voted, and b) the terms vlog, videoblog and video podcast are all a part of the lexicon right now. Much like spam blog people will be searching for clarification. If you want "blog" removed from the definition then great... let's replace it with journal. While I generally respect what you're doing 90% of the time with the vlog article, I think your constant slashing out EVERY SINGLE edit, because it is indeed every single edit, is what's causing it to stagnate and not involve. It's not even a matter of constructive criticism... one thing is clear... your dominating every aspect of the article... and fundamentally that's not right. This is not a trim and perfect process... it's muddy and it's dirty... but if you give some wiggle room it will evolve. --mmeiser 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this isn't a popularity contest. Rather, it is a serious discussion over whether the topic of video blog necessitates a separate article. I've place warnings asking for citations on your work. They are never provided. This article is one big piece of original research.Pdelongchamp 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, redirect Vlog to videolog.--Peta 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all redirect vlog to video blog and minor articles to main blog article Yuckfoo 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unverified neologisms (that are mostly unecessary descriptions to boot) except the well sourced spam blog & photoblog (note: vlog now adequately sources as well and should be kept). Right now, I see no reliable sourcing in the article that suggests vlog isn't a neologism but if someone adds sourcing to the article and moves it to video blog I can conceivably see this being kept as well.--Isotope23 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for specific feedback IN the vlog article Isotope, what would you consider good sourcing? Wired articles? Business week articles? How about the Rolling Stone. Vlogging and vlog company blip.tv was featured prominently in a PBS Now special on prime time TV about net neutrality. Youtube is the hottest damn site on the internet. Though many would shrug it off because it's sensational, a closed platfrom, and other personal issues it is clearly a video blogging platfrom. I can find sources on all these things. They probably should be in the timeline... but what did you have in mind. What does it take? We've got four books... apparently that's not enough... nor a the whole internet world gone mad over video. So what does it take... and if this craze isn't about video blogging than what IS it about... video sharing? I thought that was what P2P and bittorent were about. There's no denying that this is something different... not simply blogging with video... not simply sharing videos. It is certainly bigger than moblogging. It is consumed completely differently and used completely differently than blogging. Does blogging come in 'episodes' like TV... are they watched on portable media players like the iPod and Sony PSP. Perhaps this is all stuff that should be put on the wikipedia article... but my guess is the reason it's not... is because the powers that be have set to work slashing apart the article and anyone who attempts to edit it instead of collaborating on improving it. This has driven off all would be editors... for I've spoken to a great many of them... I ask is wikipedia getting setting so high a standard that no collaboration is possible? Or... is it more likely that certain people (not you) have set their own standard so high that noone else can live up to it. I have no doubt that many of the complaints about the article are justified... all that I've spoken to have complained about it... particularly the genres section, but mostly that it hasn't evolved... that every attempt to evolve it is immediately shot down. And I beg you to look at the history of the article... don't take my word for it... so at the least cite some guide for citations... or pretend like we're all human beings and actually *explain to me* what is lacking or best of all *cite specific example* by going through the page and adding in comments like *citation needed* like I see on many, many other wikipedia articles... Sorry dude, my frustration is not aimed at you... we need an end to slash and burn gate keeping of articles and more collaboration. I'm working on it offline too. P.S. Yeah I type a lot... people tell me that... but they also say I illustrate my points very well... so hopefully there's no crime with illustrating your points longhand on wikipedia. Just leaping at the opportunity to get back to the real issue.--mmeiser 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is lacking?" Citations. "Guide for Citations?" Citing Sources.Pdelongchamp 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm fine with the sourcing that is there now and have updated my opinion to reflect that. My biggest problem was that the term "vlog" was not sourced at all... this has been rectified though.--Isotope23 06:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eyu100 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Concur with Isotope's reasoning. --Improv 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - A combination of neologisms and OR. BlueValour 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vlog. Redirect the others. Angela. 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spam Blog I have not reviewed the others, but I was recently introduced to this concept and as usual was able to turn to Wikipedia for information on it. 204.8.96.10 20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spam blog and vlog, delete rest Photoblog is definitely a legitimate type of blog.--71.142.255.119 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all apn 69.194.41.182 06:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vlog, definitely! ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vlog and photoblog. No opinion on the rest. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup/expand/make sure is NPOV like any article should be. Petros471 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auxigro[edit]

According to the manufacturer's website [8], Auxigro is an agrochemical that makes onions, melons, tomatoes and peppers grow larger.

What makes me suspocious about this entry is that the product consists of glutamic acid and γ-aminobutyric acid, [http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Product.jsp?REG_NR=07081000001&DIST_NR=070810] something that one would not expect to be taken up through the leaves. Indeed, a study done by the university of Florida [9] shows that the product has no effect on crop size or yield. That, together with only 300 unique Google hits [10] leads one to conclude that this entry is marketing spam. Dr Zak 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it doesn't supposedly make the crops grow larger but is still used for this reason may indicate that it is used to do something else to the crop. Possibly taste better as it contains glutamic acid. Maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.125.45 (talk • contribs)
'fraid not. The datasheet is here [11], and it states "to increase total yield". Dr Zak 04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and cleanup (withdrawn). An article about this substance should be under the chemical name instead of the brand name, like drug articles; and should also be accurate. Rename to the right chemical, adding some kind of template warning of possible inaccuracy if necessary, until more info is added. Some periodicals searches do find hits, e.g. "Plant matabolic primer, AuxiGro, adds to sugar." Western Farm Press 21.16 (July 17, 1999): "AuxiGro WP Plant Metabolic Primer was registered by the CDFA for use as a foliar spray to increase the sugar content of both wine and table grapes. AuxiGro is available through distributors of agricultural products." Phr (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussion about whether or not it works or how it works is besides the point. --HResearcher 08:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non notable, not even stubby, probable ad stunt. --Svartalf 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and cleanup per Phr. --Gray Porpoise 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, not a proper stub yet, but there's still some potential here. By the way, would anybody here like to guess what I stuck up my butt today? 172.130.245.251 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably a mix of many chemicals, so I doubt it can go to a single place. Looks like an ad more than anything...
  • COMMENT HOW COULD THIS BE A FUCKING AD WHEN OVER FIFTY PERCENT OF THE CONTENT IS **NEGATIVE**?!?!?!?! YOU DON'T PUT "CONTROVERSIAL" SHIT IN AN AD!!!!! 172.150.79.194 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote (changed from "rename and cleanup"), I defer to the other participants. I'm not sure what that implies for Gray Porpoise ;-) Phr (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Glutamic acid article. Unclear that the product itself needs an article. Fairsing 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Prodego talk 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether this product makes beanstalks grow so big that Jack can climb them, or not, has no bearing on this AfD. A controversial product that does not work can be as encyclopaeidc as one that does work, providing that a NPOV is maintained. I am prepared to go with this article pro tem. Indeed, Dr Zak's excellent research seems a good basis for article development. BlueValour 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now, see, this is the perfectly reasonably explanation we've all been waiting for. Speaking of which, would anybody here like to guess what I stuck up my butt today? Let me know, thanks! 172.162.6.4 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg has already deleted the article due to reason: A1 - no context. Kalani [talk] 07:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan County Freemason-Moon Theory[edit]

Where to begin? Article is apparently about a county laid out in a moon shape, but there is no context in the article to identify the county and state. The article is degenerating toward nonsense; it's getting harder to make out what the point of the article is. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Rowan County, Kentucky, since it kind of resembles the outline of the Freemason symbol. At any rate, delete as original research. Peyna 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Time is cubic, not linear. Gazpacho 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsensical, rambling conspiracruft. DarkAudit 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Another crackpot claiming freemasons control everything --Xrblsnggt 03:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Trimble[edit]

Cleaning up the backlog of articles with unclear importance. This one has been tagged for 7 months. Seems to fail WP:BIO or WP:PROF but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. (Let's say my vote is weak delete) In any case, we might as well have a discussion rather than keeping the tag forever. Pascal.Tesson 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If no one seems to have cared enough to add to this, we shouldn't care about it. As it is, reads like a résumé. Daniel Case 03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Five books (which I've added), one of which may be notable just for the length of the title Coming Soon to a Station Near You the Process and Impact of the Canadian Radio-Television and impact of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission's involvement in sex-role stereotyping (joke) Dlyons493 Talk 03:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pity to lose that title, but one book authored and a thesis doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. Dlyons493 Talk 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Belinda Stronach article mentions her as someone who studied the fallout of her political defection. Seems to have a few scholarly publicationsas well --Xrblsnggt 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No offense to Mrs Trimble but scholarly publications is what academics do. There does not seem to be an independent assertion of notability available for Prof Timble. Moreover she is not the author of 3 of the books listed but the editor! For those unfamiliar with the process, scholarly books are often collections of research papers on a given topic and the editors are the ones responsible for putting them together. Not that it's an easy job but it's way below authorship. I've removed them from the list on the article. THe last one with the notably long name is her PhD thesis. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable academic. -- Necrothesp 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel's So Hot Summer! 2007[edit]

Wikipedia is not free advertising for the Disney Channel. John254 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Hazards[edit]

WP:NOT dictionary, also there is already an article on snow (as per User:KnightLago). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article looks like dictionary. Wikipedia is not place for making article like dictionary. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT, also there is already a problems section in snow. KnightLago 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. And I don't see what the point of the picture is, either. Daniel Case 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Waste of space. Viewfinder 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NC-802nd AFJROTC[edit]

I feel bad about this one because the creator is trying to do the right thing — it's well-formatted and even has footnotes. But at the same time a) it's a JROTC unit and would thus require some extraordinary claims for notability which b) I don't see in the article and, given the information there already, do not see coming either. Daniel Case 03:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is no different from any of the other JROTC unit pages. it was written by a JROTC veteran (me) who worded it so that the information there was confined to what was found in the sources. Also, "notability" is a very relative term. The unit is highly distinguished in AFOATS, even if it is unlikely it will ever garner any kind of "media" attention. -Ed! 03:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's commendable that you stuck with your sources. But that doesn't change the fact that this unit does not rate a Wikipedia article. See what we mean by notability here. Daniel Case 03:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I will say again that the units that I created (all but the california one) garnered the Distinguished Unit Citation, which in itself is quite notable in the Air Force. Still, I see your point. -Ed! 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - other JROTC unit pages have been deleted as non-notable- [12][13]. Looking at backward links, there are other articles that need to be deleted--Nobunaga24 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Case and Nobunaga24. --Kinu t/c 03:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also should the other JROTC articles be up for deletion? Dinosaur puppy 03:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual junior cadet units are not notable. There are thousands of them in many countries. -- Necrothesp 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manal Yamout[edit]

Delete - classic vanity entry - creator/main contributor's only edits are to this article and to associated articles to insert a link to this page; incorrect format (since they have never edited another article, they have no idea what the correct format is); weak assertion of notability (profiled on a program that doesn't have an article on a network without an article); overuse of bolding; a picture that could probably only come from the subject's private photo collection. No explanation of what the "Executive Fellowship Program" is, but I suspect it is nothing more than an internship. I highly doubt that someone straight out of college is moving into a powerful position in the California executive--Nobunaga24 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete main claim to notability is crystal ball soon to be featured Dlyons493 Talk 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:RS indicating that individual meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 03:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, accodring to edit history contains copyvio also. Dinosaur puppy 03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity --Xrblsnggt 04:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity -- rhmoore 06:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Employment with Arnie no more than a summer job- the title says so. All the other jobs look to be low grade or internships. I suspect it could be challenged under WP:AUTO too (created by Lebo-americano, which fits her description of 'Lebanese born American'). Ohconfucius 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, vanity. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators - this should actually be speedy. I just found out this has been deleted 4 times before [14], therefore recreation of deleted material.--Nobunaga24 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unfortunately, it's never been deleted by an XfD process before (all are speedies), so it can't be G4'ed, even though the outcome is somewhat obvious (knocks on wood). Semirelatedly, I would suggest protection if this AfD closes with a consensus to delete, as creation of this page seems to be quite frequent. --Kinu t/c 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen atwell[edit]

Possible vanity page for 20-year-old Australian sportswriter. I cannot verify article's claim that he's a radio host. Nobody becomes notable by blogging, and while he does seem to write for the publications named they seem like small local suburban papers which would hardly make him notable. Daniel Case 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The radio station isnt notable, bloggers usually aren't notable. Dinosaur puppy 03:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blogs not make one great. --Xrblsnggt 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above rhmoore 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the author of this article. Glen writes for newspapers in Melbourne. he does the VFL show on Sundays on radio. While far from a national identity, thousands of people search his name to find and read articles, mostly those related to sport. The radio show coincides with the broadcast of a VFL match and 3SER's coverage rivals SEN1116 for ratings. Glen hosts the Sunday Roast and interviews people from AFL clubs (eg. David King last weekend). He also does boundary riding for the VFL radio broadcasts and I believe is notorious for being involved in newsworthy events WP:BIO. Try a Google search test! Glen Atwell - Google Australia. Looks like he also writes for Cool Australia Nelgsta 13:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This Glen Atwell gets no mentions in an Australia-New Zealand database and works for a community broadcaster. The newspapers he works for are suburban newspapers. While he might have a promising future, he isn't notable enough as yet to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Capital - If you're not familiar with the work Glen does to warrant a listing, then do not call for its deletion. If I stood to delete the listing of every person on Wiki I wasn't personally familiar with, the encyclo would be halved. The listing passes a number of WP:BIO criterion including 'renown or notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events' and the google test. He is a published journalist and an easily verifiable radio personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelgsta (talk • contribs) Double "vote" struck per WP:AFD.

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notable yet. --Peta 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever forget it just delete it. i thought i'd have a go at contributing to this site and get shot down in flames! when this guy achieves what you consider notoriety then i expect an apology. Lesson learnt: "why bother at all".Nelgsta 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treckett[edit]

Non-notable fanfiction; prod tag was removed without comment. My gut tells me it should have been speedied, but I can't quite squeeze it into a speedyable category. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete incoherence qualifies it as patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe make a mention in the members articles condsidering that they are both famous. Dinosaur puppy 03:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily or otherwise. An article about a fanfic pairing with no actual fanfic or fans *defines* non-notability. --Celithemis 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WTF WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of fanslashcruftcrap that has no verification. --Kinu t/c 04:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does anyone even know what this is? --Xrblsnggt 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - nonsense rhmoore 06:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A1. Insufficient context for expansion. -- cmh 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Frantix[edit]

PRODded, then unprodded without explanation. The band has no recording contract and only have a demo and a self-released EP. Fails WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the original prodder. I would have taken it here originally but I was trying to give the creator a chance to justify the article that I didn't think it would get. I was right. Daniel Case 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know the proper place to put this:

    I thought that wikipedia was a good source for information. Unfortunatley it has come to my attention that it is only meant to benefit the rich and sucessful. The band The Frantix are a large part of the Long Island punk scene ask any local punker who they are and they will tell you!The punk scene is one which prides itself on an "Do It Yourself" mentality. By meeting with the wikipedia standards of a musician/band they are not punk anymore (major record labels or extreme sucess) because that independent factor is lost. If you are going to delete the wikipedia page about the frantix then you might as well delete any page that has the words punk rock or hardcore because in essence having them up goes against your "standards". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.255.135 (talk • contribs)

    • We have plenty of articles about punk bands, and almost as many about hardcore. The CDs don't have to be a major-label release; it can be on "...one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Obviously your mutually-exclusive standard of what constitutes a notable band on Wikipedia and what constitutes a punk band is not shared.
      Of course, a true punk couldn't care less about having Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability requirements. ViridaeTalk 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. - Richfife 05:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. And, on the contrary, there are plenty of punk/hardcore bands that meet these "standards." --Kinu t/c 05:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE!"...a true punk couldn't care less about having Wikipedia article." A true punk stands up for what they believe in. A fan of ours created the page because he enjoys our music and feels we are just as important as bigger acts.Anybody with common sense knows that having an album released doesnt mean a thing the band leftover crack(who is on wikipedia)have amazing recordings but are the worst musicians i have ever seen live.Ashlee Simpson was caught lip synching on television yet she deserves to be called a musician? I reall could care less if you delete the thing but I'm not about to just say thanks but oh fucking well to someone who took their own time out to do something so generous for the members of my band and I.Besides all of you "wikipedians" have your own little waste of space when you click on your name and I have a feeling nobody even likes any of you. We HAVE fans and yet you will still deny this page. HAH. I remember when wikipedia wasnt a dictatorship! Believe me I know you arn't judging our music. But I believe as a long time wikipedia user that maybe I should be listened to. With out the people using this site you are nothing yet you will delete this and spend so much time doing so, when there is a bunch of meaningless garbage to delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.255.135 (talk • contribs)

    -Po(singer of the frantix)

    • Wikipedia has certain standards of notability. Any content that is included must pass these standards or it is likely to be brought here and deleted by consensus. I am sorry but your band does not seem to pass these restrictions. (Please note that we are not judging the quality of your music, just how well known it is.) ViridaeTalk 05:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Has won or placed in a major music competition.

    - Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.

    - Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

    3 Requirements met. End of discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.255.135 (talk • contribs)

  • ... um, except for the verifiability thing. Where are the reliable sources indicating this tour, prominent representative status, etc.? --Kinu t/c 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A true punk stands up for what they believe in" ... so true punks believe in shameless self-promotion? Seriously, what gets an act's article kept has nothing to do with any judgement as to the quality of their music — if it did, we'd not have Napoleon XIV — and everything to do with whether a sufficient number of people have heard of them. Otherwise the garage band that just got started last night would be entitled to an article. The best proxies for that are over at WP:MUSIC.
    Now, if you are asserting that your band, despite not having any but self-released CDs, meets the requirements above, simply stating it does is not "end of discussion". The article must have verifiable sources for those claims.
    We're waiting, and hoping you or someone can deliver. Daniel Case 05:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete the god damn thing already you fucking scum bag! SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION? IF by standing by our fans is shamless self promotion then sure!If any one of the members of our band had any input on the making of the page then maybe it was shameless self promotion, but we didnt so go fuck yourself! All of you have a personal page describing who you are what languages you speak,that you use windows XP as if anyone cares.Yet a real band is undeserving.You people crack me up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.255.135 (talk • contribs)
  • If you would take the time to look it up and not be so close minded and full/sure of yourself you would come across it very easily. I bet you haven't even looked. They were on tri-state area Warped Tour which only lists major-record label bands. They are on the 2006 Bloody Solution tour. It's your job to look these things up so either take my word for it or get on it already. Reliable sources indicating prominant representitive status? Try looking on general TriState area alternitive music websites sites (punk/hardcore). Here's one to start with though: www.lipunx.com, that's all I'm going to help you with though. They are practically taking over the music scene while you're sitting here telling me I'm wrong. I've justified the reason for this band to be up here. If you are going to be bitter and make claims you aren't even looking into or won't further back up then Wikipedia is proven no different from a conservatie, stubborn, right-wing facist cult. Shuz 06:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is your job. Per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, responsibility for citing sources lies with the editors who wish the content to remain. The consequence of your refusal to do so will be the deletion of the article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked lipunx.com per your suggestion. One show in the listings page, fifth of six bands, for 8/24. Doesn't seem exactly to be "practically taking over the music scene while you're sitting here telling me I'm wrong" ... in fact, it seems like they and the fans are busy trying to save this article from deletion. It's Saturday night and ... they're feverishly editing Wikipedia. We're rocked.
      Also, the band's myspace indicates only two upcoming shows, the one already mentioned and New Year's Eve, 2007 (guess we won't be seeing them here, then). Daniel Case 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and Daniel Case you are a hypocrite and you disgust me.. "I really, really hate vanity pages." yet you have a whole page devoted to yourself! Your milestones are all about editing other peoples articles. You are an ego maniac, get over yourself!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Po litical (talk • contribs) — Po litical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Is that less of a vanity page than a myspace telling the world, "If you don't like us, you can suck my dick"? Daniel Case 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Myspace is meant for vanity which is why it is called MYspace.You sir state that you dislike vanity pages on wikipedia and will nominate any for deletion, yet you HAVE a vanity page that takes up space ON WIKIPEDIA!You are an elitist what makes you so important that you deserve your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po litical (talk • contribs)

  • The page you are talking about begins "User:". It's in user space, which is different from article space (and to make things more interesting, this discussion takes place within project namespace). If you click on almost any other username here, you'll find something similar. User pages are by definition vanity pages. Daniel Case 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify this a little bit, Po, our user pages here are not quite vanity pages or MySpaces. I've always seen them as virtual cubicles, since Wikipedia is essentially an online workplace. Since you now have one that you are free to similarly modify, go check out our policy on user pages to understand the difference between them and article space pages.
      Seriously, if you'd like, if this band doesn't work out, do consider sticking around. Or even if it does. You might find an area where you could contribute constructively. Daniel Case 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will add to this discussion that User:Po litical went and vandalized my user page this afternoon[15]. Not helpful to his case. Daniel Case 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another epigraph for the deletion section on my page. Oh well. (Yet another novice editor confuses user namespace with article namespace) Daniel Case 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed WP:MUSIC. Now instead of pouring all this Uncivil behavior and engaging in personal attacks, why not find and cite sources to back up your claims that the band in notable? If you can prove these claims with verifiable, reliable, and reputable sources, then of course the band would be a keep. The burden is on the authors/editors of the page to provide evidence/sources/citations. --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed WP:MUSIC --- rhmoore 06:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, unverifyible, inherantly POV. Dont like the band logo either. also per above.--Musaabdulrashid 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Xrblsnggt 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Fuck yo couch nigga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.146.48 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and let's go back to sipping our brandy. ... discospinster talk 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute no verified claims to support notability under WP:MUSIC.-- danntm T C 22:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator for this website. I signed up to create pages I felt should be here and that's why I made a page for this band for they have made a big imprint on the alternitive music scene of the tri-state area. I have also supplied proof in the previous posts that you so frequenlty ignore. I told you what major tours they were on (YES WITH NOTABLE BANDS). That should be enough. I gave you the name of the tours. It's your job to go look it up not mine. It's not my website.Shuz 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As said above, it is your job. If you know these things as you say you do you would have put them in the article to begin with. Would it be that hard to put the links here? Daniel Case 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said they were on the Warped Tour ... which year? I decided to take your word for it and search. I found some Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands Pages [16]. But most of the links mentioning it were myspaces, which are not reliable sources. And consider that the Warped Tour often has about 100 bands per show. Did the Frantix play each and every show of that year's Warped Tour? I note they're not on the list of 2006 Warped Tour bands at our own article, nor on the list of bands at the unofficial Warped Tour page.This is not auguring well for notability. Daniel Case 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, as for Bloody Solution: I got all of three relevant Google hits. One is a myspace for the 8/24 show.[17] Another is the main website for this tour. [18]. I don't see any mention of the Frantix as playing any shows other than the Amityville one we already know about. The other is one posted by the band themselves (or was it a fan, too?) at punx.org.[19].
      I am having real trouble accepting this as a major tour, especially since headliners The Scarred do not appear to be notable, either.
      Oh, and I really like that user profile at punx. But I hope I read that age right. Daniel Case 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never mind WP:MUSIC. This is WP:VAIN being fed back through a Marshall stack. Lazybum 04:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Peace Trail[edit]

Deprodded. I initially tagged it as copvio, but the author obliged by relicensing the material on his website under copyleft, which was a cool move to match his cool idea. But as an idea without any coverage by reliable sources, we really can't cover it in wikipedia, especially not before it's even been built or started. 8 unique google hits and no news coverage that I could find.--Kchase T 04:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although I wish the author well. --Celithemis 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Erechtheus 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and no evidence that Peace Trail Project meets WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 05:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hope it gets off the ground, and becomes notable enough to be included here, but until then, its not an encyclopaedia article Lurker haver 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn nom, default keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Guidestones[edit]

NN, article does try to establish notability and never establishes what subject of article actually is (date of origion, geogoly etc). Text is partisan, inconsistent and misleading, real agenda is not revealed. unscientific nonsense Coil00 04:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The monument is described by reliable sources, and the material is verifiable and NPOV. The fact that the meaning of the monument is mysterious does not make it non-notable. -Will Beback 04:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. The other flaws listed could be fixed by editing, and I'm not seeing most of them anyway -- e.g., date of origin is there under "History." --Celithemis 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is a problem article, but it should be improved, not deleted. Erechtheus 04:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable monument. AfD is not for articles that merely need cleanup. --Kinu t/c 04:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom I don't think there is anything 'mysterious' about this monument, but I take the points being made: its a clean up/NPOV issue, not afd. Oops. Coil00 12:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's[edit]

fails WP:CORP pschemp | talk 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABX Air[edit]

Fails WP:CORP pschemp | talk 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Airline company that's listed on NASDAQ and has an IATA code? Surely this passes WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 04:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough. 118 planes and listed on NASDAQ, meets WP:CORP. --MaNeMeBasat 12:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the further reading section of the article, the first criterion in WP:CORP is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 12:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:CORP, as company is listed on NASDAQ (further explantion: possibly passes first part per individual interpretation of policy and easily passes second part of the "criteria for companies and corporations" in that it's listed as part of an American stock exchange) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Dinosaur puppy 18:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fairly straightforward keep here. Marskell 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is part of the Fortune 1,000 list at number 983 with $1.464 billion in revenue in 2005. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/snapshots/3721.htmlSaltmor 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banging List[edit]

Not notable Neologism. ViridaeTalk 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's also riddled with OR. Pat Payne 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Petros471 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Stafford Brockman[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Seems to be yet another part of the Brockman genealogy project (which of course Wikipedia is not. 4 other similar articles were recently deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Brockman Esq b1626, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Drake-Brockman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Brockman Esq. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Brockman Esq. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sure. A redirect is the right compromise. Actually I feel stupid that I did not simply avoid the AfD and redirect myself instead. But too late now, right? Pascal.Tesson 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any naval officer of flag rank is notable. In addition, Brockman was chief engineer of Devonport Dockyard and then Portsmouth Dockyard (the Royal Navy's two largest bases) for a total of eleven years, including throughout the Second World War. Officers in much less important positions have articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not sure that we should keep every admiral but the postings Necrothesp listed seem notable. Information on them should be sourced and added to the article. Eluchil404 20:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eye-Capturing Productions[edit]

Not notable, website appears to have been non-functional since last year some time. No G-Hits other than Wikipedia for "Eye-Capturing Productions" Richfife 04:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to quote one of the post on their forum (one of four post) "We're on wikipedia! yay! lol now tim just needs to get this site going". No alexa rank, fails WP:WEB by a mile-and-a-half. --Eivindt@c 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a promo start-up. Marskell 22:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British people of Swedish descent[edit]

Descent list-cruft. Article serves no useful purpose. No room for expansion or potential to be encyclopedic at this time. —Viriditas | Talk 04:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My biggest concern is the OR aspect. Where does one actually find a citation that indicates one is British and speaks with a Swedish accent? Erechtheus 05:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its descent not accent. ViridaeTalk 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the correction. I don't know how I got the two concepts confused yesterday. I still "vote" delete per your rationale. Erechtheus 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could be better served with a cat. ViridaeTalk 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are, say, 160 countries in the world. If we have a comprehensive list of "X people of Y Descent", that would be 25440 articles (160 * 159). Ouch - Richfife 05:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per richfife. That's a lot of potential articles. Lurker haver 09:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although a true listcruft fan would include List of Z people of Z descent making 160*160 :-) Dlyons493 Talk 10:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsom Normal Primary School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Deprodded and deprod2'd by User:Kappa Anyways, delete for lack of notability as an elementary school. Wickethewok 05:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge, we should be able to find out about schools we are interested in whether or not they are "notable" to random page users. Kappa 05:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past general consesus seems to be that universities are always notable, there is dispute on the notability of high schools, and below that (middle school, primary, etc...), past consesus has been that they are not inherently notable. Wickethewok 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I want to learn about something, I don't care if a random page user would find it notable or not. Kappa 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could really say that about anything though. Wickethewok 07:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but I wouldn't feel stabbed in the back if wikipedia deleted all its contents on my local corner shop. Kappa 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying Wikipedia has an article about your local corner shop? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems unlikely, LOL. Kappa 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats been my past observations at least, though my observations could certainly by skewed. Wickethewok 07:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to detention Sorry, but this stub has no claim of any notablility, not verified for any fame or reason to be listed here. No history...nothing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some specific claim to notability. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete school Musaabdulrashid 06:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non notible school. There is nothing in the article that suggests that it has any encyclopedic worth. Thε Halo Θ 11:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once again submitter fails to realize that notability guidelines are just that guidelines not policy. The only policy that matters here is verifiability. Is this factually correct? Do we have sources? Since the answers to those questions are a clear yes, this should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable primary school. As per my usual standard, unless they have some claim of notability OUTSIDE of being a school, then I will vote for deletion. ViridaeTalk 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally non-notable school. Can't see this "if I want to learn about something" argument - Google exists, and there's a whole internet out there besides Wikipedia where you can learn things. This article doesn't tell you anything the school website doesn't, which is usually the problem with these articles. Opabinia regalis 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy under CSD7. no notability asserted. Quite an old primary school in NZ. So wot? Ohconfucius 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, verifiable, well-referenced article with lots of potential for expansion. JYolkowski // talk 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very few elementary schools rise to the level of encyclopedic importance... just as very few elementary school students, while in elementary school, do. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with over a houndred years of excistence it has at least a small claim of notability, but elementry schools need to exceptional to be notable enough for inclution in WP, IMHO. --Eivindt@c 20:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I continue to find the assurtion of notablility as the standard for articles problematic, but even those that support the standard have maintained an institution of a given age should meet the standard and I think something that has existed for >100yrs should merit inclusion. Wakemp 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Age is not an adequate assertion of notability. Being first in some significant way (not in a sub-national geographic unit) might make the cut. With no adeqaute assertion of notability, keeping it violates the WP:NOT policy against being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 01:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- meets all content policies, topic is notable as an important institution in the community. Good stub. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My god, these "All schools are notable people", while they are as entitled to their opinions as I am to mine, sometimes really irk me. How is this single elementary school, with no significance stated nor claimed in the article, notable enough for WP? -- Kicking222 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By being important to its local community, and by wikipedia not being paper and aiming to help provide universal access to the "sum total of human knowledge". Kappa 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not Google. Please provide some reason that this school is notable beyond it's local community. Please cite independent, reliable, reputable, third-party non-trivial sources that show this school should be listed. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why wouldn't importance to the local community be enough. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is never enough. Bands that haven't done anything significant out of their community don't get a mention in wikipedia. The only pub burnt down in my home town - that was massive for the community, but doesn't warrant an article in wikipedia. Why should schools not get the same treatment? What makes every single school so notable that it needs its own article? ViridaeTalk 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Importance to the local community is usually not enough because it usually means there a dearth of sources that genuinely meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. A school's own website is borderline, as a source. I personally wouldn't reject information from such sources, but I'm not very happy about school articles where the only real source is an external link to the school's website. In the case of the article under discussion, at this moment we currently have a very odd situation in which there is an external link independent of the school... but that link is not used to support any facts that are currently in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Verifiability is all-important, but that standard is only relevant to notability to the extent that articles on non-notable things are often also unverifiable. School AFD's would be more interesting if the basic verifiability of these articles was under fire, but generally its not. (As far as school websites go, I usually consider these okay sources for basic info, e.g. enrollment, principal, location, etc., especially for government schools.) To address the other points made above -- mention of that burned-down pub might be worth including in the article on the community, if it was as significant as you indicate. Nor does a keep vote on this AFD imply that the school deserves "its own article"; discussion of whether to merge the article belongs on the article talk page; the primary question here is whether the content should be deleted. A keep consensus never precludes a merger that retains the content. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • There are a lot more things that are verifiable than are on wikipedia - mainly because they are not notable. AFD revolves largely around verifiability and notability. Schools are the only thing on wikipedia where the majority of keep votes ignore the notability. ViridaeTalk 00:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think people are ignoring the notability so much as there is a dispute over (1) whether notability is an appropriate standard, (2) whether schools are notable or not. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep School articles get people interested in Wikipedia. Piccadilly 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would porn and blogs and letting people write articles about themselves. Attracting new people to Wikipedia has never been a valid reason for keeping an article. *shrug* Just thought I should be annoying and point that out... :P Wickethewok 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please schools are notable and interesting subjects Yuckfoo 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry (and it's not as if 100 years is a very long time). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Allow the article to grow organically. There is no innate reason why primary schools are not just as important as high schools. GBYork 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why is it that we have so few Wikipedia biographies of six-year-old children? Age discrimination? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since BGYork likes to use that arguement, I will counter with Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Come on, "grow Organically'? The article has been around since 10/2005, and it's still a stub. Only the recent AfD encouraged any 'growth'. There is an innate reason that primary schools are not as notable or important as high schools. School athletics and the fact that this (High School) is where people prepare for college (and/or the rest of their lives). Not everyone graduates highschool but nearly everyone has gone through a primary school. I've never heard of a college recruiting from a primary school. The only time I have heard about primary schools in the news is when a child is sent home for some violation of zero-tolerance or (and I hate when I hear it) some child is injured or some maniac goes nuts in the school. --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I actually favor deleting nn primary schools but the age (120 yrs) and the existence of an English/Mandarin bilingual curriculum (which I presume is rare in New Zealand) strike me as (marginally) enough notability for a topic that doesn't have WP:V or WP:NPOV issues. Eluchil404 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I would contend that it does have WP:V issues as one of the sources cited is a government article just talking about school (as the government has tens if not hundreds of these reports...are all the schools notable then?). The other link gives an error however a google cache shows an article created for a government newsletter/magazine. If that is all WP:V requires, lets nominate every primary school around the world as notable--Brian (How am I doing?) 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Verifiability criteria has been satisfied. Bahn Mi 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The school was formed in 1886, and the backstory regarding Chinese integration is an interesting one. Yamaguchi先生 08:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Findyourgod[edit]

Non-notable forum created in 2005 by four teenagers. Does not meet WP:WEB. No significant sources. --Hetar 05:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' as it is non-notable and probably a self-promotion. No assertion of importance. Garrepi 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, I couldn't find any Google hits for the mushrooms quote. - Tapir Terrific 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB, "202 registered users" per the site (er, forum) itself. Possible WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 05:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. Possible nonsense. - rhmoore 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas gentlemen's clubs[edit]

Strip club list in Las Vegas. Don't think it's encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a guide to adult entertainment. -- Samir धर्म 05:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages, adult or otherwise. --Kinu t/c 05:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above - rhmoore 06:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only does it violate WP:NOT, but it's also listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 11:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, advertising. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. JIP | Talk 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like a tourist guide or a yellow page entry rather then an encyclopedic article. --Eivindt@c 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. --PEAR 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. Piccadilly 10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Gough[edit]

Not sufficiently notable. He's been an unsuccessful candidate for Mayor, claims to have won "Canterbury Man of The Year" and "High School Hunk of The Year" (terms which return no Google hits apart from his article). His family may be notable, but it seems he's the only one to have an article. Delete.-gadfium 05:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence in article that subject meets WP:BIO, reads too much like a WP:VANITY page. --Kinu t/c 06:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Fails WP:BIO - rhmoore 06:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO as non notible. Thε Halo Θ 11:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, non notable. Dinosaur puppy 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. --PEAR 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are 12 references to him in an Australia New Zealand database all about his bid for the mayor of Christchurch. This includes a letter to the editor on "Another idiot idea from the council" and an article entitled "Little interest in job as Christchurch's mayor". If he'd been elected, it might have been a different story but for mine, he isn't notable enough yet. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Limegreen 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as Capitalistroadster notes above, there isn't enough verifiable info for an article. Ziggurat 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. Avenue 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thud (band)[edit]

Google search turned up less than 10 relevant hits. Not notable. rhmoore 06:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Incredible Hulk (TV series). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David Banner[edit]

Unbelievably redundant. All information available in the Hulk (comics) and The Incredible Hulk (TV series). Chris Griswold 06:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Besides, the article is barely even a stub. Redirect to The Incredible Hulk (TV series) - Doczilla.
  • Just redirect it to The Hulk and forget it. --Doc 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Hulk. Thε Halo Θ 10:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) - though, as a side note, isn't the Hulk's real name "Bruce Banner"?[reply]
    • Comment - Usually, yes, although not the TV show; I believe the producers found the name to be too girly. I think it was used a stereotypical gay man's name at the time. --Chris Griswold 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series)#Development will answer your question. ☺ Uncle G 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks all :) You learn something new everyday! Thε Halo Θ 12:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually he was "Robert Bruce Banner" in the comics because Stan Lee forgot, and used both Bruce and Bob, in the first few issues. Fan-1967 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the TV series, since his name wasn't David in the comic. Fan-1967 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per precedent of articles being written on individual TV characters. See, for example Alias (TV series), Hustle (TV series), as well as Star Trek and Doctor Who, just to name a few. Dr. David Banner was the lead character of a long-running TV series. I see no reason why he can't have his own article (though the article should be expanded). 23skidoo 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have separate articles on characters where there are multiple characters, and covering them extensively would be impossible in the main article. Pretty much Banner was the show, with about two minutes a week of screen time for the green guy, and a little more for Jack McGee. Fan-1967 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Incredible Hulk (TV series). If at some point in the future the section of the TV Series regarding the character becomes particularly large and/or notable, then the editors can consider splitting it off. No need to before then. -Markeer 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Incredible Hulk (TV series). Markeer has it right; if this needs to be spun off, we can do that, but for the time being it doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Dinosaur puppy 19:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Deletion would be a mistake, as people may use as a search term. --Dweller 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Character is clearly different from the comic book character, as most comics-to-TV characters are, and there is no good reason to merge with the Hulk comic character. That would very likely be too confusing, even for comics fans. Badbilltucker 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Easily searched. ReverendG 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos, The Mad Titan[edit]

Article is a sandbox, a bad copy of another article. Chris Griswold 07:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Doczilla 07:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I don't even seen any data that needs to be merged to Thanos -Markeer 16:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create new redirects to Thanos. This article is a 6-month old version of Thanos. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete - redundant and worse than the other existing article.

Badbilltucker 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speed delete - purge it now.--Gonzalo84 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halogrid[edit]

Advertisment for forum. No independent proof of notability. Alexa rank 760,998 [20].--Drat (Talk) 07:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus though some of these sources should be cited in the article, really. Issues of whether or not they're reliable should be worked out on the talk page, or perhaps an afd eventually if that fails. W.marsh 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goon of Fortune[edit]

Seems like a made up drinking game. Minimal Google hits, none of which are reliable sources. Delete as original research with no reliable sources. Wickethewok 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- I don't know, seems at least somewhat verifiable to me. Also, as I stated when I deprodded it, it does seem like a rather unorthodox case of countering systemic bias. Haikupoet 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please present some reliable sources then? Because I certainly haven't found any so it doesn't seem verifiable to me. It seems like a popular drinking game would have more than 70 unique Google hits. Wickethewok 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced original research about a non-notable drinking game hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well known game in Victoria, at least. There must be a reference somewhere. 203.110.145.13 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture at the bottom of this thread: [21] 203.110.145.13 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (hmmm, it would appear that I am not signed in!)[reply]
  • Keep Real drinking game. See [22] [23] [24] [25]. Many an Australian youth has gotten plastered to this fine tradition. An integral part of Aussie culture. etc. Drett 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, those are not reliable sources in the least. Urban dictionary? Some guy's blog/personal site? The other sites you listed are user submitted information as well, so these are in no way reliable. Wickethewok 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, chill out, please. Jumping on every person who votes keep is not a very polite way to act on AfD. Haikupoet 05:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was I jumping on people? I just think its necessary to point out that the sources cited are not reliable. I don't think I was rude in anyway and it certainly wasn't my intention to be. Wickethewok 23:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that the wealth of unreliable sources which reference this game might be able to convince you that this is a real game. Unfortunately the Aussie tradition of attaching a plastic bag of cheap booze to a clothesline is not something which is often referenced in academic journals and the like. Drett 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I'm not willing to throw away WP:V. I also disagree with you that this constitutes a "wealth" of sources. Wickethewok 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions in 3rd Degree Magazine, as part of an article on wine drinking: [26] / Mentioned on the Game website Gameosis: [27] / Folk from The Chaser and folk from Jtv play Goon of Fortune: [28]. Drett 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.lavamus.com[edit]

advertising KenWalker | Talk 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was work it out on the talk page. I don't see a clear consensus for removing the material, although there might be grounds to do so. There are definite concerns regarding the name of the article, but you don't need AfD's say-so for that. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of persecuted Turkish writers[edit]

There was some problem with this AfD. I am merely substing the templates properly. Have copied the original nominator's reason below. Aksi_great (talk - review me) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original reason by User:BigHaz - Renomination of a previously nominated page. All contributors to the previous AfD were invited to participate in a discussion on the article's Talk page about where the information was best placed. Consensus was to move those charged under Article 301 to that page (they already were) and those charged for insulting Ataturk to that section of that page (the one who was explicitly charged in that manner was redlinked, which implies a lack of notability - the section of the article in question also doesn't seem like the greatest place to put the names of those charged for insulting the man). Thus, we're left with an article which I'm not quite sure what to do with. I stress again that the overwhelming majority of useful information is in fact duplicated elsewhere on Wikipedia, which seems like as good a reason as any to delete this. That said, arguments were made during the AfD and the discussion about a possible rename, so that may be a worthwhile thing to bring up here. I'm in favour of a delete based on the rationale that the information is either duplicated or (in the case of the redlinked people still listed) just not there, but I'm only one man. BigHaz 08:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The title is inherently NPOV. There is no clear criterion for inclusion. Not all people mentioned are normally considered to be writers. The article lists people who are dead and alive indiscriminately, and makes no distinction between old cases and new cases, or between the cases in which the accused were convicted and acquitted or only charged. Those listed are often much less notable than those not listed. As such the article is not informative and serves no purpose. I do not agree with what BigHaz wrote above that being redlinked implies a lack of notability. Several if not most of these people should have an article. Actually there is a page Ragip Zarakolu; its page title differs from the (proper) spelling in the redlink in this article. --LambiamTalk 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I based the idea that "redlinked implies a lack of notability" on a comment which I'd misread either on the talk page or the previous AfD. My apologies. BigHaz 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sourced parts have already been moved, with the exception of Zarakolu (described above). What remains is a collection of names who have achieved a level of fame by being charged under laws which tend not to be specifically named. BigHaz 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to this reliable source Zarakolu faces prosecution (also) for charges under Article 301, and so can be listed there. --LambiamTalk 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although it's a rough-cut job so it's all all as beautifully cited as the rest of the article is. The name, details and link are there, though. BigHaz 06:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess at a pinch we could tree it out from Article 301 as "List of people who have been charged under Article 301", and use it as a place to list the "notable prosecutions" or whatever that article calls them. There's then the question of whether any individual who's not listed there (i.e. the redlinks we still have on this article) is notable enough to be listed for that - presumably there'd be a lot of stubs to be created running "X is/was a Turkish journalist/poet/author/other who was prosecuted under Article 301". BigHaz 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although possible, I'm not sure it is an ideal solution. If you take the information away from our article Article 301, I'm afraid it will become rather lame; the Article derives its notoriety notability from these prosecutions and attempts at prosecution. But it is better than leaving the article under discussion be. --LambiamTalk 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So move the redlinked characters to Article 301 as well? BigHaz 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Francis. This is a notable topic, and not all of these people were prosecuted under Article 301. —Khoikhoi 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you have a suggestion for another name? In the previous discussion you appeared to be supportive of List of notable people charged under article 301, but that does not jibe with your present recommendation. --LambiamTalk 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, how about List of prosecuted Turkish writers? —Khoikhoi 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that they're all being prosecuted and haven't had the charges dropped before they got that far (yes, I know it's in the references, but I've got a splitting headache and wouldn't be any use looking at them), then that makes sense to me. BigHaz 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should they then actually be writers? Do publishers count as writers? Any limitations on the nature of the alleged crime? Current prosecutions only, or should cases from 1926, say, also be included? Perhaps also from the time of Ottoman Empire? --LambiamTalk 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. I'd forgotten we had some ring-ins (the Mazlum Der head being probably the most ringing). Perhaps get rid of all bar living authors (as against publishers) who were actually charged under things like Article 301 or other serious parts of the criminal code. BigHaz 07:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I understand the meaning of "ring-ins" in the preceding sentence. --LambiamTalk 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it must be more of an Australianism than I realise. It means "something which is in a place where it doesn't normally qualify to be", so in this case the people who aren't necessarily "writers" in the normal sense of the word are ring-ins. From memory it's a horseracing term. BigHaz 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is only current cases, then a question is: How do we keep it current. For example, the article states: "Ibrahim Aksoy, ..., imprisoned ... since October 1995". This sounds like the man has been subject to the notorious brutalities of Turkish prison wardens with atrocious accents for almost eleven years now. But the reference given is from 1996. I further have some problem in making the criterion "other serious parts of the criminal code" concrete. (It would actually seem worse to me if writers are prosecuted by dint of frivolous parts of the criminal code.) How can we deal with this in an NPOV way? --LambiamTalk 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point again (and I'll admit to not having checked those references, I'm not in great health at the moment so I give up on research a bit more easily). Perhaps the idea of rolling this into a subpage from Article 301 as "notable prosecutions" (and zapping anyone who we can't verifiably say was prosecuted under that article) is the best. BigHaz 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina[edit]

This page is unnotable Dan200 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No more notability asserted than being a popular YouTube participant. Not quite an A7, but nearly.Tevildo 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Despite being a reasonably well-formatted and well-thought-out page, blatant self-promotion and not notable. --Matticus78 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See news coverage by Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, and Chicago Tribune. Meets WP:BIO — TheKMantalk 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, then, unfortunately. A sad reflection on what "notability" means in the world we live in, but we merely have to record it here. Tevildo 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral in light of this, as article still remains strong vanity and some elements are dubiously unverifiable. Weak keep if rewritten/improved. --Matticus78 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)n[reply]
    • re:WIP:BIO - The only criteria on the list emmalina remotely satisfies is the last one, and I really think its very debatable whether the "web" column of a couple of newspapers describing the same phenomenon count as "multiple non-trivial published works". Dan200 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheKMan Computerjoe's talk 21:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Honestly, will she be remembered in 2 months when her internet fad has ended? Wildthing61476 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak white knuckle keep Flash in the pan. She will be a nobody in two months time and the news articles of today will be lost to history. However this is a confusing case where Wikipedia is not a crystal ball works in reverse.--Nick Y. 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest keep ever! I just wish those newspaper writers had more idea of notability than we do... -- Jared A. Hunt

07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If she's not gonna be popular in two months, then delete the article two months from now. Until then, she consistently is watched by tens of thousands of people and merits a page. Cuttycuttiercuttiest 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep -- covered by major news sources as above, and is routinely atop YouTube's (and thus the Internet as a whole) most-viewed videos. She reaches more people daily than almost every TV personality WP has an article about. 69.142.21.24 07:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep Emmalina is watched by hundreds of thousands every week. Her newest video blog "A dance and talk about professional porn VS amateur." has gotten *340,000 views in 2 days. Tim buckley 28 june 2006
  • Keep She is a popular internet culture symbol. St.isaac 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow. She actually has an article? I think she is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, though the page may need some cleanup. --FlyingPenguins 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say shes just as notable as most of the other people in the Internet celebrities catagory, then theres the mainstream media coverage, yes she probably will forgotten in a couple of months, but no one talks about Ellen Feiss anymore and theres an article on her. Lossenelin 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelet.biz[edit]

This is a private company (i.e. no stated market capitalisation). This article shows no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Created by single purpose account Leehongfay (talk · contribs); note that the company founder is listed as Vincent Lee Hong Fay. Other contributions include speedy deleted Vincent Lee Hong Fay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I checked the http://sourceforge.net/projects/enterprise, it started about the same time as http://sourceforge.net/projects/compiere, and almost has 97% activitiy percentile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.169.41.40 (talk • contribs)
  • KeepI found another private software company, but it is a US private company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made2Manage, if Made2Manage can stay, perhaps Wavelet.biz should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.71 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The Made2Manage article has neutral, verifiable sources. Wavelet.biz's article currently does not. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i think the page should stay, because wikipedia should be countries neutral, may be some of the editors/admin are not in South East Asia, but wikipedia should not discriminate countries, region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.160.5 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I disagree with the tone of your remarks and I don't think they're helpful, but I do want to thank you for actually improving the Wavelet.biz article by removing some of the inappropriate references to "we" and "our", rather than simply attacking other companies' articles and other editors' motives as some other anonymous users have done. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cries of discrimination against Asian companies (or any company outside the US or UK) say little about the notability of this application or this article, and besides, anyone who looks at Category:Manhwa, Category:Manga, and Category:Anime can't say that there's no room here for Asian content. Simply whining about perceived bias isn't enough - this entry has to stand on its own, and it does not. It reads like a sales brochure ("Our system provides...", "Our e-commerce module comes with..."), and if the consensus is 'keep' it's going to need a lot of cleanup. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion, and if you don't think an entry is notable you should nominate it for deletion and allow the community to decide by consensus. Notability is decided by the community, However, like it or not, this is the English Wikipedia. We can't use sources written in Thai, Korean, Chinese or Japanese to verify the claims made here because most of us don't read those languages. I'm sorry about that, but this version of Wikipedia is written in English. Besides, there are plenty of articles here that aren't in the Thai/Japanese/Chinese/Korean Wikipedias, and vice versa. Please stop accusing editors of not acting in good faith, because it doesn't help you or this debate. Instead, tell us why the article should stay in the English Wikipedia based on the merits and use of the product and only the product. There are more than 125,000 projects at SourceForge, so having SourceForge as a host isn't part of the notability criteria. I can't get wavelet.biz to load after trying three different browsers, so someone else needs to explain the notability of the site/app and where the claims can be verified – in English. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if the community intend to grow, and welcome international audience, and has good faith in international audience, and have good faith in international editors as well, they should respect their view and opinions, afterall, even though wikipedia is in english, but its purpose is to function as encyclopedia, recording everything under the sun... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.228.17 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Your comment would carry more weight if it wasn't for the fact that it's apparently the only thing you've ever contributed to this Wikipedia. Kickaha Ota 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What you do not know is not what does not exist. 58.71.254.145 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree, but your actions are truly inappropriate and undermine your own cause. From looking at your contribution history, we can see that you've done nothing to even attempt to improve the Wavelet.biz article. Instead, you've gone on the attack against seven other companies' articles, at least some of which are clearly better (both in terms of asserting notability and in terms of sourcing) than the Wavelet.biz article. There's still time for you to fix the Wavelet.biz article instead of trying to inflict as much collateral damage as possible. Kickaha Ota 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lets compare the Wavelet.biz community project with the following:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24SevenOffice
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visma
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Software
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYSPRO
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiere
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTW_Incorporated
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_ERP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataflux
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdee
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejunction
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntelliTrack
    Why remove a community project, and allow the software names above stay in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.160.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep May be the more experience editor could help to improve the content a little. Based on the list of hyperlinks above, it seemed justified to have community project listed in wikipedia, since it is quite established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annietan (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete--No notoriety, all of the keeps below were made by one user (or owners of that company). --Palffy 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note that the comment was added at the top and I moved the comment to the bottom for chronological order.) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. Advertising. --Sleepyhead 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Administrator: Please note that most of the keep votes are unsigned or from users without any other contributions. Probably sockpuppets. --Sleepyhead 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seem to be an ERP war going on.. perhaps Wikipedia should only list one or not more than 3 biggest ERP vendors, namely SAP, Oracle,.... The rest like NetSuite, Compiere, SYSPRO and other ERP vendors should be completely wipe out... The rest are all NN CORP. 58.71.254.145 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just found out that Sleepyhead has been disguised as afew different usernames and going around to vandalized other software company stubs. Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Compiere, perhaps, only NetSuite and a few ERP companies that paid him to monitor other new up and coming competitors closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.254.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No evidence presented that it meets WP:CORP. Comparing it to other company/software articles on Wikipedia doesn't support notability; in fact, I see that a few of those mentioned have already been nominated for deletion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and now I see that they were nominated for deletion by obvious retalitory sockpuppets. There are plenty of non-notable companies on Wikipedia that should probably be removed, but a few that you've chosen easily meet WP:CORP criteria. Choose your targets more wisely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified delete. Assuming it was verifiable, this looks like it would be notable. I'm guessing it would probably pass WP:CORP if our readers could speak languages of Southeast Asia. Since it's unverifiable right now for lack of English sources I vote delete, but we should allow recreation without prejudice if it gets verifiable (i.e., English) coverage that satisfied WP:CORP. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:V, WP:RS or WP:CORP at this point. Nice that this 'war' is helping remove these NN company articles. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since this is the 'EN' version of Wikipedia, perhaps this should be transwikied to the asia wikipedia?--Brian (How am I doing?) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extend AfD period and add sources to the article. The article appears to have been at least somewhat rewritten during the discussion, making it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like an advertisement. If I had to vote now, I'd still vote 'delete', because it's still missing one critical piece -- sources, other than the project's own website, to establish notability. A flood of folks have shown up to defend the article. I would highly encourage those people to use their knowledge of the product to find neutral, verifiable, preferably-English-language sources that establish the project's notability, and quickly add those sources to the article. I don't know if procedure allows for it, but I'd like to see them given every chance to do this. (I know that AfDs are occasionally extended for a few days if there's no consensus, which seems to be the case here.) Kickaha Ota 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A flood of folks have shown up to defend the article" No, it is the same user and/or sockpuppets. --Sleepyhead 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I very much doubt they're all sockpuppets of one person -- at least some of them are probably other people involved with the Wavelet.biz project. If they just showed up at the request of someone who objected to the AfD, that might arguably make them 'meatpuppets', but it would also make them highly qualified to fix the darn article. :) Kickaha Ota 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would dispute that there is no concensus here. Many of the keeps do not list valid reasons or refute the arguements of the people who have voted for delete. Remember, it is the strength of the arguements, not the strength of the numbers. At this time it looks like Delete is the concensus and nothing about the article (as of this post) has changed to refute those claims. Another thing to remember about the AfD process, (right from WP:AFD) Unregistered or 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). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Beyond all that this still falls into being "unencyclopedic" (violates WP:ENC). --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I got to slow down. Keep missing my signature[reply]
          • Good points. I'd still rather see the article fixed than deleted, but I don't know enough about the subject to fix it myself, so I can only hope that someone else fixes it in a hurry. Kickaha Ota 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Try to improve the article I notice some changes in the articles too, from some good faith anonymous editors. I think KickahaOta is being fair. I could see some sockpuppets and meatpuppets too. Overall, lets move forward, and see if the articles could be improved. If the consensus feel that the article is completely worthless, then remove it, otherwise, keeping the article could be a good source of reference for general audience. Annietan 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
    • Comment While I respect that, your arguement is weak in the face of the matter that Wikipedia does not keep articles based on if they are interesting or not. Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus So if you believe it should be kept, please provide a reason that these pillars of the wiki community should be put asside for this one article.--Brian (How am I doing?) 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give us some credit, we're not stupid. The sockpuppets are yours, as evidenced by the spree of AfD nominations of competing products that this account, associated IP addresses, and single-purpose accounts associated with those IPs addresses engaged in. (Just one example: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]) You made a mess that was not pleasant to clean up. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily agree that these are all socks, but I do agree that Annietan's noble-sounding "agreement" rings profoundly hollow under the circumstances. Don't agree or disagree with me. Fix the article, quickly. Kickaha Ota 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems like a lot of the articles listed here to try and defend this article are now up for deletion. I think we need to intensively review (and perhaps even modify) WP:CORP to come up with some sort of consensus concerning these small companies. And then, once that is done, go through each corporation page and either decide to keep it based on WP:CORP, or delete it so we don't have anymore "Well, if that company can stay, why can't this one!?" arguements. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and for the record, I say Delete, per all delete votes above. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google As Reference Since notability is subjective, a neutral approach is to use the Google page rank and roughly test out the importance of a page/project (1 = least important, 10 = most important):

http://www.prchecker.info/check_page_rank.php

  • Result
Wavelet.biz returns 5, 
SQL_Ledger (http://www.sql-ledger.org/) returns 4, 
ERP5 (http://www.erp5.com) returns 5, 
Ramco_Systems (http://www.ramco.com) returns 5
  • Comment In practice, Google testing also winds up being subjective, because Google itself has certain selection biases that need to be accounted for. Measures of Google pagerank often wind up measuring "How much has this web site owner done to optimize his or her Google ranking?" as much or more as "How notable is this web site?" Leaving that aside, Made2Manage Systems, an article you nominated for deletion (in your only other apparent contribution to Wikipedia), also rates a 5 on your proposed test. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really interesting, because when I enter "http://wavelet.biz" into the page rank calculator, it returns 0. Even the sourceforge page only returns 2. Where did you get your result of 5? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Pagerank checkers usually check only the very specific URL they're given. "http://wavelet.biz" gets a 0 (since few if any links to the page use that form); but "http://www.wavelet.biz" (the more usual form) gets a 5. Kickaha Ota 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, thanks. That explains it, and also teaches me something I didn't know before. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a community project/team/organization is not notable in a country/regions, it would not have been selected by Singapore Government to represent the country and take part in international competition:

http://www.singcham.com.cn/shshshow.asp?zs_id=2550 Annietan— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Comment This is your third "Keep" 'vote' posted to this AfD, not counting any anonymous entries you may have made. And the list of invitees on that page includes such entries as "Tertiary Student Project - Multi-player Mobile Game - Chinese Chess". It would appear that Singapore's invitation criteria for this event were, shall we say, not particularly stringent. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It indicates that the competition is very complete, and it is open for different categories, from financial applications to business applications, and there are categories for students. If Wavelet.biz represents the student category, then it is not worthy, but Wavelet.biz was representing the business/industrial application categories. Do not confuse the readers with the participants in one category from the other. Also, Singapore government is well known for its government efficiencies, policies and competitiveness. Accusing the Singapore government of not doing their job, just to bring out the point that Wavelet.biz is not worthy of wikipedia because Singapore government is not doing their job may not be the best thing to do. For the record, I am a Singaporean, and feel disturbed by the statement above, and sorry for my fellow countrymen. Singapore may be a small country in terms of size and population. But please do not insult us, Singapore as not serious in running our own country. Marcussua 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Marcussua (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment My statement was certainly not an insult to Singapore. It was simply a statement that Singapore, like any other country, may run events or contests for participants of various levels of achievement and notability. Thank you for clarifying the nature of the contest, which was not clear from the source. Kickaha Ota 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional reference , copied from the article itself:

Wavelet.biz is recognized by Singapore Government and Singapore IT Federation, and represented Singapore in 2004 to participate in Asia ICT Awards in HK (year 2004). See http://www.singcham.com.cn/shshshow.asp?zs_id=2550

Wavelet.biz was selected and represented Malaysia to China to promote Malaysia ICT products and services. See: http://www.csia.org.cn/info/routine/Name%20List%20of%20Malaysian%20ICT%20SMM%202005.pdf#search=%22wavelet.biz%22%22 (no 26 in the list)

Wavelet.biz has passed the stringent compatibility test by Red Hat in various Linux platforms. https://www.redhat.com/apps/isv_catalog/AppProfile.html?application_id=2827 Annietan— Possible single purpose account: Annietan (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Comment You already mentioned the Asia ICT Awards invitation, and I already replied. Unfortunately, the csia.org.cn article you link is not in English, making it difficult to determine what selection criteria were used. And RedHat application profiles are provided by the application writers, meaning that they are frequently self-promotional, and a listing does not mean that the product is important or well-known or widely-distributed. I appreciate you trying to find English-language sources; I just want to point out the problems with the sources you have provided. Kickaha Ota 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've strucken out the extra 'votes' by Annietan and also slapped that SPA tag on their posts. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to point out a striking thing about this debate: despite the volume of comments encouraging that the article be kept, every single one of them -- except for my own "quick, fix the darn article" comment -- has come either from an anon account or from what appears to be a single-purpose registered user account. In an AfD that superficially appears to have a volume of supporters on both sides, that's extraordinary. Kickaha Ota 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Facts vs Consensus Remove From what I see, in the interest of the wikipedia's editors' interest, it is better to remove Wavelet.biz. Since the primary users of the Wikipedia are wikipedia editors, facts are refuted, and subjective accusations, and "feelings" are taken into considerations. Pretty much like a war on who is more expert in creating some sort of SPA, to bring down the reputation of Wavelet.biz. Basically objective reference are discounted. Subjective comments are counted. Similar projects in wikipedia are kept, but Wavelet.biz is attacked by experienced wikipedia editors to play reverse psychology by creating sockpuppets etc. Articles that look like advertisements are kept, and article that state facts are removed. In order for the best interest of wikipedia, this discussion page itself should be removed forever, so that it does not affect the reputation of wikipedia.
In summary, by removing the article, Wikipedian editors with limited exposure and knowledge would be happy. A community project like Wavelet.biz continues without being affected. Governments in south east asia will not be insulted. Other sockpuppets created by similar projects to bring down the Wavelet.biz wins. So, I would vote for Remove or Delete. Everyone is happy. Marcussua 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You seem to be perceiving this as a referendum on your own worth as a person and the worth of several countries, and perceiving the actions of everyone else in that light. Unfortunately, the premise is simply false, and as a result your perceptions of others' behavior are misdirected. Wikipedia's concept of "notability" does not equal "moral worth", it never has, it never will, and it is not intended to. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and especially Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. Kickaha Ota 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloporeims[edit]

Blatant spam. Nothing more to say, it simply and obviously reads like an ad Lurker haver 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, creator has attempted to remove AfD notice Lurker haver 10:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Celithemis 10:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 10:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this were kept, the title should be Glopore IMS, not "Gloporeims". But that said, it appears for all the world like spam about a company that fails WP:CORP. I'd be happy to change my vote if somebody can provide verifiable evidence of actual notability, but as things stand it's a delete. Bearcat 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tractor kid[edit]

Non-notable video gag. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been featured on Sky Sports which attracts millions of viewers, it's been spread virally on the Internet (do searches for "Tractor", "Tractor Boy" and "Crazy Dave" on Youtube for instances of the video and links to parodies to show how much influence it has had) and it's had parodies which have also appeared on Soccer AM's Mobile Phone Clip segment. Catchprases from the clip have also spread onto Internet message boards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.9.111.155 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete yet another in the infinite march of funny/silly youtube videos. Gets 77 unique Google hits, and most of those are unrelated ads for toys and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete flash-in-the-pan internet meme. No one will remember this in a few months. Opabinia regalis 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a very well known mobile video. -Plowright 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable video, claims to fame are unsatisfactory and unsourced. --Eivindt@c 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flash in the pan indeed. Marskell 22:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable cruft. -- Necrothesp 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete' - to quote Plowright, it's a bunch of crap. Also, it's a flash-in-the pan. When well known mobile videos start winning awards and there is a Top 100 Download list for them, like there is for ringtones, then we might get enough stats to know which ones are notable each year. Garrie 01:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes dates and times[edit]

Seems to me to be an indiscriminate collection of information, impossible to complete and of very little use. kingboyk 10:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of law firms[edit]

This has passed an AfD with no consensus, but I don't see any reason why the article needs to exist. It's full of redlinks, the notability of the included firms is often dubious, and the content is nothing more than a list. If a firm meets WP:CORP then it should have an article, and categories would be a better bet for listing law firms. Perhaps an article about particularly notable law firms (suggested in the previous AfD would work, but this list seems to be a list of firms of questionable notability. Delete Lurker haver 11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete funnily enough I just came accross this page and was considering its deletion. I think it warrants deletion because there is absoloutely no criteria for inclusion in this article. Listcruft. ViridaeTalk 11:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list has the potential to become incredibly large without any consideration as to the notability of the firms added. If a law firm is notable enough to deserve inclusion in wikipedia it should have its own article and be included in the category law firms. --IslaySolomon 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Law firms covers anything this article could acheive - Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. However a check should be made that all firms with a blue link are categorised correctly. Peterkingiron 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "It's full of redlinks" is exactly why a list is good - catagories can only hold things that have articles, lists can be made before all articles have been made. LinaMishima 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If an article consists mainly of redlinks, its often about people or organisations that aren't notable enough to warrant their own articles. Since a category only includes subjects of articles, they tend to be about something notable Lurker oi! 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear as to the extents of this - what counts as a law firm? LinaMishima 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But only if some criteria are established as to notability, otherwise any little firm could be added. The existence of categories does not make lists redundant - they serve different purposes. -- Necrothesp 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The major firms have articles, and we should not be encouraging creation of many more articles about law firms as most of them are of no importance. Piccadilly 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I tried quite hard to bring some order to this page; establishing minimum criterea for inclusion; linking the lists to third party sources (to try to independently determine importance) - nothing worked. Free advertising is just too alluring for lawyers, and every Sue, Grabbit and Runne in Shitsplatt, Idaho puts their firm's name in there. I agree key law firms should keep their individual article, but a list of law firms article is just too unwieldy and, frankly, too uninteresting, to be worth all the aggravation. It is already covered by Category:Law firms. The other point is that there was never any satisfactory sub-division. Currently it is done by countries, but many firms have offices in multiple countries. And the country approach takes no account of areas of expertise. You would be hard pushed to find a leading human rights law firm on the list. Let's just get rid of it. And let's knock off List of U.S. law firms, List of largest UK law firms and List of Israeli law firms whilst we are at it. Legis 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This can be better handeled through categories. No aparent added value in the list. Eluchil404 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copypasta[edit]

I just don't see how this can be notable here. DyslexicEditor 11:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 12:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not the issue here. The issue here is contravention of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. The article cites no sources that describe in detail what copypasta is, and I've looked for some and found none. The only way for readers to verify the contents of this article is to perform primary research, i.e. to read and analyse all of the discussion forum threads directly. This is a novel analysis of a discussion forum habit that has not yet been properly documented outside of Wikipedia. The route to having an encyclopaedia article on a subject is for analyses to be published, fact checked, and peer reviewed outside of Wikipedia first. Delete. Uncle G 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 82.57.177.132 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? A vote without a reason has no value. Fan-1967 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copypasta kind of explains itself, just by the name of it. In fact, the 4chan article sums this up in a paragraph.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.16.95 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete self-explanatory neologism with no apparent currency. Opabinia regalis 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already explained on the 4chan article, where it belongs. LinaMishima 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anon (ie. no reason). Danny Lilithborne 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why exactly do we need this? -- Necrothesp 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Escapee from 4chan article; not notable (or, most likely, verifiable). - makomk 13:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per common sense. -Hachiko 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was going to vote Delete, but my mom got scared, she said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air." I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, The license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare, But I thought "Nah forget it, Yo home to Bel Air." I pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby "Yo holmes, smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broads and Billiards[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, doesn't appear to be notable. ViridaeTalk 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom - it also looks like this may be a hoax - read the (also Afd'd) article about the Artist - Peripitus (Talk) 13:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Also see related AfD.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete musician is nn, so is this as well as crystal ballism. --Eivindt@c 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Cramden[edit]

Unless the spelling is incorrect this person appears to be utterly not notable. (209 google results - none of them significant) ViridaeTalk 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a clear hoax - Peripitus (Talk) 13:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a failure of WP:BIO and very likely a hoax. Also see related AfD --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either a joke or extremly non-notable, google finds no person with this name on the net. --Eivindt@c 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of verifiability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. -- Necrothesp 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, let me get this straight. Article gets put up at 6:30 this morning, and prodded within a few minutes. Within the next five hours the guy kills himself because of the prod notice, and the news has already gotten out enough that somebody (who obviously doesn't know him personally, else they'd be too racked with grief to even think of such a thing) updates the article with this information before noon, despite the fact that he's virtually non-existent on Google. (I'm curious about Viridae's 209 Google hits; I get none.) Nope, I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I also don't buy that he had a professional association with people named "Raoul Stevenson" and "Harold B. Condoleeza". Nonsense/hoax, and even in the unlikely event that he really did exist, he wasn't notable. Definitely delete; be speedy about it if possible. Bearcat 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My search only results two hits for the exact name "Brent Cramden", both leading to Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 08:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Date System[edit]

Overly detailed information about a fictional universe. The only point of significance, the 999.M41 date notation, is now mentioned in Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). Prod removed by anon IP as their first edit without explanation. Delete --Pak21 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - However notable Warhammer 40,000 may be, one possible setting in it could not be notable - by an non-expert. Peterkingiron 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:Peterkingiron. JIP | Talk 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, game trivia. Gazpacho 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wyatt's alleged discoveries[edit]

Violates, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Wikipedia:Importance, is basically a personal essay on finding Noah's Ark. Wyatt is a crank who may deserve his own article but his ideas have so little merit that they don't, atleast not this mess. — Dunc|☺ 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Ron Wyatt. The man himself seems to be of dubious significance, his "findings" certainly do not deserve their own article. --IslaySolomon 11:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the entire article, most of it is very skeptical about it, edited from Ron Wyatt's opponents, so if that's the NPOV violation I should put more Wyatt promoters? And perhaps it definitely deserves an own page for it. If you're skeptic about him, (I'm too) let's criticise his works (even though he's dead). If you label him as a crank you're definitely violating NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo 7 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into Ron Wyatt or into respective "findings" sites like Ark of the Covenant, Searches for Noah's Ark etc. I too do not feel it merits an entire article.--TurabianNights 15:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the title is too weaselly. Gazpacho 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Any non-OR material into Wyatt's pre-existing article. JoshuaZ 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the main article already contains these claims that lack scientific/academic proof. C56C 09:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article contains no material that shouldn't also appear in the Ron Wyatt article. It doesn't work as a redirect and is an unnecessary fork. --ScienceApologist 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Am a Japanese School Teacher[edit]

I'm just not sure if this article is notable enough. Basically it's a web phenominon and has not appeared in any newspapers. I can't find any notability review things (just some template that will get ignored) so I am listing it here so if I see lots of delete votes I can save the information in a text file, rather than coming back months later and finding it deleted when I wasn't watching. Anomo 12:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep for now. Looking at it, the article is certainly popular in the world of the web, but that doesn't always make it notible. I'd say that it just passes WP:WEB, becuase of the hits I got on google, MSN, and Yahoo, but I am worried about WP:V being upheld. I will change my vote if I find out any more important information, both on the web, and in this vote. Thε Halo Θ 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the criteria on WP:WEB. It says nothing about the number of hits; it talks about being referenced in multiple non-trivial news sources, winning major awards, or having content being redistributed by major sources. --Kunzite 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this boils down to some guy's blog. Blogs are only rarely notable and this isn't one of them. If it had some significant publicity, or possibly a reaction from the JET program, then it might qualify as notable. Opabinia regalis 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I usually vote delete for articles without references, this is an interesting phenominon within the anime community. LinaMishima 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Keep Interesting, yes. Funny, yes. Popular on blogs and forums, yes. Meets any guidelines for web notability, no. Not even close in fact; all I could find on Google was one reference on Comedy Central's Insider "What's Funny on the Web" section[35], surprising given how popular it seems. Mitaphane talk 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing Badlydrawnjeff's much better Google query. I see that the site in question has been mentioned by much more notable sources, MSNBC being one of those. I take back my suggestion to delete. Mitaphane talk 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you give the MSNBC link please? Anomo 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right here. Turns out its a MSNBC blog by Will Femia. Probably not as notable as a story, but still much better than a forum posting. Mitaphane talk 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete very popular on the web but per Mitaphane fails to meet any of WP's guidelines for web pages. :( Danny Lilithborne 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a blog, this is extremely notable. Just google its name and see that its been featured on Comedy Central and been mentioned in many other major sites and publications. It also gets 10 million google hits. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction for the above with a correctly formed google search string (also removing forums - add another 10k or so with forums), it's only 20,000 - but almost all of them are about the site in question (judging from the first 50 results) and even allowing for significant duplication (50%), that's still 10,000 websites refering to this. Comedy Central and VG Cats are in the first 10 results.
  • Delete blog is not noteworthy Fg2 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources found I think that this is a wonderfully insightful column to the Gaijin phenomenon in Japan, but... there are no references that I can find in LexisNexis, and I've tried searching every name combonation. Perhaps merge some to Gaijin. --Kunzite 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; no obviously reputable sources. The "mainstream" references people have found turn out not to be so mainstream after all: the MSNBC reference is from a blog, while the Comedy Central reference consists of all of three sentences - a passing note, not a review or an article. The majority of the links seem to be from other blogs... — Haeleth Talk 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. Sandstein 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fg2, this blog looks notable enough for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Notable blog, plenty of google hits, relatively well written article (compared to all the random 'web directory' articles that pop up on AfD all the time). - Wickning1 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge possible, adding tag. W.marsh 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GU002[edit]

An article about an unused catalogue number. No, really! Delete. kingboyk 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this article has issues with context. But an entry about an unused number does seem un-notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article about nothing that is worth recording - Peripitus (Talk) 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all important information into Global Underground, where it would make more sense and add useful content. LinaMishima 17:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:Gay Cdn. JIP | Talk 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per LinaMishima. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another fancruft article apparently written for the sake of writing an article. -- Necrothesp 22:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Global Underground. Sandstein 20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the editors of the main article can incorporate anything they think is suitable. A Merge or Redirect is simply a Keep since it can be undone next day. BlueValour 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Kingdoms[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable browser based game. Prod removed by author. I knwo the article listed 52,000 players, but I'm till not sure if the game is notable enough Wildthing61476 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While 52K players would help the in its nobility, this page has nothing verified, lists no reliable sources (or any sources at that) and as it is written by one of the particpants, it may consitute original research and vanity.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V.--Peephole 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, and unlikely to get any. Alexa rank over 200,000 - whilst a poor tool, this certainly says we're not missing something the world thinks is special. LinaMishima 17:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry was made by three people that i know of. Although maybe more have done. More than 52k people have played the game but its 52k active players. On our forums for the game there is a thread dedicated to this where we have been discussing this entry. http://www.acilion.com/englishforum/index.php is the forum. Anything that has been put on the entry can be verified there. Or you can go to the french forum, cant remember the link for that off top of my head WP:Software is not a policy yet so you cant count that gaainst it. I may also participate i nother stuff on wikipedia if i find the time. Im busy at the moment with my own site.Trect 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Trect (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - amazingly badly written and no notability sourcing /in the article/. BlueValour 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Georgel[edit]

By comparison, here is what a truly notable IT figure looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberhardt_Rechtin

Charles T. Betz 13:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references, hence delete. LinaMishima 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a pretty non-notable person who's written a few articles. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rice dishes[edit]

Contested prod. This list should be a category and in fact already is a category; see Category:Rice dishes. I see no reason why it should be a list as well, and I'm curious to know the rationale for the deprod. VoiceOfReason 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, why not give users a basic clue as to the ingredients and origins of each dish instead of making them play guessing games with a bald list of names? Kappa 13:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 3 red links, which are only possible in a list. Lists can provide more information than a cat. LinaMishima 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and LinaMishima. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm often in favour of lists, but this one serves no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment it's thankfully not a raw list - it briefly describes the type of dish, which the names alone in a catagory cannot do. I'm begining to suspect some additions to the catagory tools might be a good idea (the ability to brief descriptions) LinaMishima 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with this list. Provides information not possible in a category. Fg2 01:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I can see how this list could become useful, if there were short descriptions for all the entries. But as it is now, the list is not much better than the category. I'll probably change my mind if it gets written up more fully. Lazybum 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fg2Doctor Bruno 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn nomination, as there appears to be a clear consensus to keep. VoiceOfReason 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is a solid consensus that notability does not exist with a relationship to royality alone. The argument for deletion is much stronger. Yanksox 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Mary Carnegie Etherington[edit]

Articler was db-bio then prod'd someone un-prpoded so AfD'd, this child is unnotable has done nothing notable as is pretty far in the line of succesion. Just vanity tbh. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. I find nothing notable ouside claim to the throne. I would contend that the importance is a logarithmic function of the position-in-line. So by being 59th, she might as well be infinity as far as I care, unless she's a Norwegian princess as well, which she isn't. I was going to suggest merging to James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife, but realised there's precious little to merge. Ohconfucius 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on matters of the british monarchy, she has an important position - at number 60 in the progression is King Harald V of Norway! Not vanity, either - article was created by Francs2000. Being the granddaughter of the duke of fife also means we can expect the lesser press to care about her. LinaMishima 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her entry in the article Line of succession to the British Throne gives all the information needed. --Eivindt@c 21:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usually I vote to keep royalty articles, but this girl is just too obscure and not really even royal. -- Necrothesp 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being fifty-ninth in line to the throne and no other claims to fame is the acme of non-notability. Yes, Harald V appears in the press, but not because he's sixtieth in line to the UK/Canadian/et al throne. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Astrotrain 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a vote; a keep with no supporting justification can and should be ignored by the closing admin. Verifiability and reliable sources are policies, WP:BIO is a guideline, keep with no rationale is nothing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK then- how about being in the line of succession to the British throne is notable. Astrotrain 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL - there are thousands in line of succession. BlueValour 23:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fenton Mad Jack 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete no obvious notability being 59th in line for the British throne doesn't seem automatically notable unless it has generated news coverage but none in mentioned or linked from the article. Eluchil404 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but what has she actually done? Nothing here. 59th to the throne? - unless the revolution happens she may as well be 59,000th or 5th for that matter. Chances are nil. BlueValour 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nandesuka 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of manga published in English by Tokyopop[edit]

Obsolete, entire list has been categorized into Category:Tokyopop. Deproded by Kappa with no reason given. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I've added the similarly categorized: List of manga published by VIZ Media that was also de-prodded to this AfD. (Same list, same topic, different company.) --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a plain, unstructured list does not render an annotated, structured list obsolete. Kappa 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The list is neither annotated nor structured any differently from the category. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both lists are annotated, and the Viz list is currently well-structured. The other list previously had some structure [36], I think I'll go put it back. Kappa 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What on this list could not be represented by a category? I see nothing. --Kunzite 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - between List of manga and Category:Tokyopop this page is fairly redundant. Shiroi Hane 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:List of manga published by VIZ Media added at this point. --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Red links are possible on a list, "entire list" is not on in the catagory as there are red links. This is an advantage of lists. The list could be improved to better take advantage of the list format, but that's another matter LinaMishima 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what this page is for: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Secondly-- are they all notable? Some of them are perhaps sequels or related works that are covered in main articles. Others may be name variations which are unlinked. --Kunzite 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You asked what on this list could not be represented by a category, "sequels and related works", and "name variations" are exactly the kind of thing lists do well and categories do badly. Kappa 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now, I remember where I've seen your name... You're the editor who de-prods everything. Lists do them just as badly. There was a redlink on the Anime list for Cyber City Oedo. The article was named Cyber City Oedo 808. Most name variations are not important--they'll come up in a search as name variations are supposed to be linked and require redirects to be made. Entries are often made to these lists with no research or searching of the wiki for prior articles what-so-ever. If there is something particularly in need of a variation, the redirect can be categorized. Anime is an extraordinarily well covered topic on Wikipedia--converting these vanilla lists in to categories is no detriment to the wikipedia. --Kunzite 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely making them less vanilla then would be far better than simply deleting them? The topic page system uses lists, and lists can feature a brief one-sentance description of a subject (whereas currently, catagories cannot - something to change?) LinaMishima 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many name variations are important because someone might know a title under only one of those names, eg. English/Japanese, or Tenchi Muyo vs No Need For Tenchi. Categorizing a redirect is an obscure trick and means that the the target will show up twice in the category. Kappa 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Redlinks were moved to the centralized Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga as part of the categorization process. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but comment, should the category simply be "Tokyopop"? I would feel more comfortable with something along the lines of "Works published (or maybe licensed) by Tokyopop" as the category.--SeizureDog 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete (changed vote). Between redlinks on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga and categories, these two lists are seem to be redundant. --GunnarRene 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ADV releases category was deleted, but we have Tokyopop and VIZ media categories. Why? Should these not be consistent with each other? My opinion here is Either released-by lists or categories, not both. --GunnarRene 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Look, we have plenty of lists like this. List of Square Enix games, List of ADV releases are just 2 examples. I categorized all the items on the list. The list itself it nowhere near complete, TOKOPOP has 404 print titles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Request pages are TOOLS. Once an article is created, they are removed from the listing. Lists such as this are more permanent, well, listing of the subject. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, once an article is created, it is removed from the request page listing -- and automatically added to the category listing. Manually-maintained lists of articles are thus redundant. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ADV releases should be removed and categorized. And they would be categorized into the various sub categories.. Including publisher. Why do we need a list of books published by a company? What purpose does it serve? It's having lists for the point of having lists. --Kunzite 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to a category. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to a category. BlueValour 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various discussions above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This category would have never been populated without a list like this (that's exactly what happened by the way). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the list served its purpose and now must move on to a higher existence. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that were useful once are superceded by other articles, categories, and so on. This isn't the first article to have this happen, and it likely won't be the last. As for whether or not a Tokyopop category could have been populated without this list, that's just absurd. Plenty of categories haave been populated without a list existing beforehand. Certainly, the list made it easier to populate the category, but that doesn't mean it would have been impossible to do so without the list. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not entirely. I went through Category:Manhwa and added Tokyopop to the correct entries. There are also other ways to get the list of items by a certain publisher: OCLC amazon.com or the publisher's website. --Kunzite 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete surprised to see this much discussion for something that's obviously redundant listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was replaced with an article that can make better use of the title.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bs4994[edit]

The article is written as an advertisement. Indeed, the article appears to be blatant spam vandalism -- however, an administrator removed the speedy deletion notice from this article. John254 13:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, he says "spam" is not valid speedy reason. Well, delete. Medico80 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam is not a speedy deletion criterion, although I would like it to be (and 90% of users think it already is). Delete this article - spam. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hedquist Productions, Inc.[edit]

Not Notable, advertising, vanity article. I am also listing the subsidiary articles (see below). --Brianyoumans 04:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Also proposed: Radio Hed Lines and Jeffrey Paul Hedquist. Hedquist himself appears the most notable of the three - the Clio awards sound impressive, but they give out huge numbers of them every year. All 3 are basically vanity articles. --Brianyoumans 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I was about to abstain on HPI on the basis of the Clio awards, but not if they hand them out like candy. -AED 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you take the text in Clio Awards literally, they give out around 170 a year. I didn't count the number of awards on the site, but the number sounds plausible. --Brianyoumans 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Lbbzman 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Yup, its advertising Lurker oi! 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single reference (from a very minor source) and the article reads as an advert. LinaMishima 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Paul Cyr 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war[edit]

biased, discredited, false, one sided. gives wrong impression because of the use of the word massacres - not in context. many of the dead are combatants, and none were deliberately targeted. only cited by discredited notorious propogandist Benny Morris, not enough information to put such a list which gives wrong impression for people who won't enter the specifics. Unusual list, not present for other wars. clear biased and POV reason for compling such a list with no encylopedic value. Amoruso 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously. This is a politically-motived listing. Amoruso has not given any of the reasons which are generally accepted as a basis for deletion, and has not given a single example of an error. If the article is biased, there are procedures for fixing the bias. Actually the article is conservative and well-researched. Many of the items link to articles with good quality citations to the academic literature. --Zerotalk 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — How is it one-sided? It covers incidents on both sides. (BTW, does this AfD template seem messed up?) — RJH (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's messed up. Amoruso created a new section in another AfD entry to list this for deletion. I've tried to fix the AfD by giving it an entry, and adding the appropriate templete to the article, but I can't find a way to correct the fact his paragraph is repeated in the log Lurker oi! 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs amendment for WP:POV. I think 'massacre' may be an emotive word, but if the incidents happened, they should be recorded. If there are similar incidents on the other side, they should be added to the list rather than the list being removed. Unlike the later Arab-Israeli Wars, the 1948 conflict was in the nature of a civil war. These are often particularly brutal. If there were massacres in wars elsewhere, they may deserve articles, and possibly a list. Peterkingiron 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree first the genocide term needs to be removed. Furthermore, it IS one sided , check the discussion page of the article. Many of these events aren't referenced by any reliable sources. And you can see the many critics on the discussion page which also refute most of the findings. So like you said, it needs atleast amendement for WP:POV, first by deleting the massacre word. (sorry for the log mixup, don't know how it happened). I've also given many reasons for deleting, acceptable reasons, the most important one that this according to many users in the discussion serves no encyclopedic value and that it is highly misleading. Amoruso 16:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong keep Needs a rewrite to bring in a better POV, but it has references, and is an interesting and informative table. LinaMishima 17:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. This Nominator's edits suggests a strong Israeli POV (edits include changing Arab claims to Arab "claims" [37] ). Previously, Nominator has placed multiple dispute tags on articles about Israeli massacres (e.g. [38] [39] [40] ), while removing a dispute tag on a similar Arab article [41] ; using no edit summaries, marking edits as minor, and with no discussion on talk other than the occasional "I disagree". Plus a lot more suited for AN/I. As for the article, it covers both sides (or should). Notability: this might play a role in "the right of return" claim by the Palestinian side. Furtermore, other historians have researched this subject besides Morris, so there are more sources to cite for willing editors. -- Steve Hart 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any bad faith here is only by you, Steve. I've changed "claims" to claims only because I was citing the writer who said this. It wasn't my opinion. You could have mentioned that it is I who wrote claims in the first place ! The whole article was written by me, it was an immediate edit. Therefore that shows bad faith from your side. Secondly, I only put tags where I thought it belonged, I always explained my edits, or nearly always. I removed a tag which was put for spite (a violation in the first place). Unlike some people like you who use pop-ups and damage articles written by Israelis or Jews with no apparent reason. Like a real speedy check said above, the article needs a serious clean up as it is critically one sided, based only on one discredited source, and is misleading and doesn't live up to wikipedia standards. Amoruso 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: Article was created on July 14, 2003 by User:BL. Your claim to have been the author of the whole page is a little hard to swallow. Georgewilliamherbert 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think User:Amoruso is referring to a different article. However, my point was that this article is nominated not out of concern for notability, but because he would like to see it go despite of (presumed) notability. -- Steve Hart 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is abuse of the AfD, Amoruso should be banned. --PEAR 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the article that Steve Hart was referring to, obviously not to this article. Now with this article, I don't want to see this article go for any reason except the fact that a lot of users including myself have expressed our opinion that the page does not conform with wikipedia standards and that it has no value. You can read the discussions on the page. Many feel this way and I thought it needed to be discussed. Amoruso 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paris by Nights[edit]

Info already exists, in fuller detail, at Paris by Night. Andrew Levine 14:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Fails WP:CSD:A7 - no assertion of notability (once you ignore the obviously made up content). Gwernol 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FidoCent[edit]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatism and neoliberalism in Canada[edit]

Article completely uncited, it is most likely composed of original research, and it's contradictory. It's dubious that "Canadian" version of the term even exists. Armon 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Valid terms, but the article is without references and appears to be original research. Might have a place in a politics of canada article LinaMishima 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This review suggests that it may be a valid subject, although, as the man said, I wouldn't start from here. Needs cleanup with a neutron bomb if kept, which it probably doesn't deserve to be in its current WP:OR state. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for want of verification. Gazpacho 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as these are not Canadian terms. 132.205.93.83 02:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • neoliberalism in the article is the centrist drift of the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party of Canada has drifted right many times in its history, it has even been defeated by Red Tories that ran the Conservative Party of Canada to the left of the big 'L' Liberals. As for neoconservatism, that is what Canadians refer to as small 'c' conservatives. 132.205.93.83 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purgement[edit]

This appears to be derived from fanfic set in the Lion King world. Searching for the author, Taka Khumbartha, finds nothing relevant and searching for Empire seems unlikely to be helpful. Unable to verify that the novel from which this term is taken exists while purgement + simba finds only this WP article. In the absence of verifiability, a delete is in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't even know what this is -some kind of fantasy novel fancruft? Armon 14:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, but I don't dare use the cr?ft word in a nomination. Verifiability is policy, cruft is an essay. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Policy or not, it's hard to think of a better example of fancruft. That not withstanding, this seems completely non-notable [42] and is so lacking in context as to be almost nonsensical. --IslaySolomon 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, and unlikely to have a reference outside of a book written under what looks to be a psuedonymn LinaMishima 17:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Royale Executive Club[edit]

35 members, ZERO ghits, unbelievable claims of power and influence, If its not an outright hoax (I think it is, but can't prove it), its a decidedly NN group. Delete Lurker oi! 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as almost certainly hoax. No references, and "Royale Executive Club" gets zero Google hits. Student clubs at a single school aren't generally notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - awaiting references The author of the article enquired on the talk page about how to add references. Ergo, I have encouraged them to post the references there, and my vote will wait until I know how notable these are. I strongly suspect this is something made up at school. LinaMishima 15:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sport coat mafia --Xrblsnggt 16:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable (and very small) college society. -- Necrothesp 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some reliable references turns up. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. The article is written in the style of a vanity article yet states that the club has a racially discriminatory membership policy, which suggests that it may be a hoax anyway. --Metropolitan90 04:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The puppet masters always are hidden backstage. In my time at the top I heard frequently of this group. I'm also suprised by the facts as I quickly learnt not to ask questions. However I know enough now to know that this is all true. -- Bpazolli 09:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We must not let the existence of the puppetmasters be known. Doh! DJ Clayworth 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I recently talked to the Chancellor of this group and he will be providing me with references over the next few days. I apologise for the delay in supplying these.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

Lord Protector 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for considerign addign references, but please note that proof of existence is not proof of notability Lurker oi! 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the Palestinian Authority[edit]

Information already exists, in full, at Palestinian National Authority, with much more context. No pages link to this list. Andrew Levine 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is an unnecessary duplication of information Lurker oi! 14:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above checked the PNA article, and the material is all there. As there are so few members to this list, having a separate list is not adivisable. LinaMishima 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kind of short, like the list of people who want to keep this article. --Xrblsnggt 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation when the list is longer than three people. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A whole article to list three people? Why exactly? -- Necrothesp 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep This is required to fully populate Category:Presidents, to which I have added it. Piccadilly 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it is likely that all of the members on this list will get an article, a category might be better. Vegaswikian 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very pointless list (which is required to fully populate what exactly?) Sandstein 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casism[edit]

Neologism, 3 English Google hits (remainder Spanish), deprodded. Accurizer 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly a newly invented neologism - even states "first came into popular usage in 2006", ie less than a year old. No references, no keep. LinaMishima 15:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE AS POINTLESS NEOLOGISM --Xrblsnggt 16:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP But with added references, less bias -- User:queen_nicole 14:42, 12 August 2006 (PAC)
  • Delete. Rubbish. -- Necrothesp 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NEO, LJcruft. --Kinu t/c 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choral Public Domain Library[edit]

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result, given low participation at the first AfD, and in light of new evidence. Please consult the DRV for evidence of notability before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve The article is rather lacking in references and content, I must admit. But it does appear to have credentials, and it's a website providing a valuable service. What we really need is more references. LinaMishima 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many wikipedia articles link to an individual composer's entry in the CPDL. If this page were to be removed, we just end up with many red wiki links until somebody inevitably starts the page off again. So Keep. Nunquam Dormio 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails WP:WEB, and, well, we can always remove the redlinks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I poked my head in again, and I'm still not seeing any non-trivial press coverage, awards, or hosting with a notable host. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have slightly expanded the article. I disagree about WP:WEB, but find it dificult to assert notability in the article without increasing 'vanity' quotient. CPDL has appeared prominently in the Choral Journal (ACDA), Computing in Musicology (CCARH), and a MusicNetwork workshop. over 10,000 choral musicians use it every day. It is an interwiki-linked site (ChoralWiki). It appears to be the most used choral website (according to Alexa). Any hints on improving the article? I'm not very experienced with WIkipedia articles ... Ornes 19:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user has less than 50 edits. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • wow, you're right! Only 38, I definitely need to log in more often, I have far more than that .... ;) (Ornes) 67.180.254.70 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete all free sheet music archive articles and change the {{ChoralWiki}} template. I am of the opinion that a free resource which has helped so many people make music and is accessed by people across the globe deserves a place in this encyclopedia. ChoralWiki is more popular than any other free sheet music archive so if you're gonna delete this page, you'll have to delete the rest (Mutopia, Free Sheet Music Archive, etc) as well. Bobnotts 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user has less than 50 edits. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have today contributed a bit to the article and will try to make more improvements to it. Not only does practically every choral director use CDPL as a resource, many many universities and professional choral groups reference CPDL as a source of choral music. Chuck 23:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request you say universities use this - it would probably be very helpful to find a recommendation on a university website as this being a good resource. LinaMishima 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Request I note that the site is officially endorsed by a link on official sites (maintained as a university, not merely a page of a student) of the Northern Illinois University School of Music (cf.: <http://www.niu.edu/Music/links.shtml>), and Kent State University (cf.: <http://dept.kent.edu/music/choral/links.html>); I submit that the inclusion of these links on official sites meets the criterion 1, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", specifically under the sub-point "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms,...". I vote to Overturn the deletion. ÞorsHammer 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user ChuckHG has less than 50 edits. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have today contributed over 150 free vocal scores to it. A major University will be using one of my scores to perform a Baroque Opera this fall. I have emails from Choral directors in remote places, such as South Africa praising CPDL's contributions. It is certainly worth pointing out this resource to Wikipedia readers. It should also be noted that CPDL has a better claim to being listed than does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClassicalArchives which is a commercial siteUser:johnhenryfowler2 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's only edits are to this AFD and has no talk page as of yet. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand In principle, Choral Public Domain Library is the equivalent of Project Gutenberg in the domain of vocal music. It thus has an extremely large potential range, from sung texts dating before 1,000 C.E. in the collection, through the predominantly vocal music of the late mediæval period and Renaissance, up to works offered as public domain and composed in the 20th and 21st centuries. So basic is the voice to musical expression that virtually every notable composer has provided works capable of representation on the site, and the vast majority of music composed before 1700 would be suitable for eventual inclusion, provided copyright issues (similar to PG) are met. Moreover the site clearly invites contributions from volunteers (again, I myself am a contributor of CPDL editions) to improve its comprehensiveness in all vocal genres (although there is a historical bias towards sacred music), with a long term aim of complete editions of major composers as would be found in university or public library reserve collections. I disagree with Man in Black, CPDL certainly meets the foremost criteria for WP:WEB, however the article as it stands is a stub and would benefit from major expansion. Other articles concerning similar public domain resources should provide a model for this. Philip Legge @ 01:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • user has less than 50 edits and no talk page as of yet. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. However a number of my edits were done as an unregistered IP address - other edits from my home ISP's modem server are not so easily traceable owing to random IP allocation; and besides most of my energies are directed towards producing new editions of music for public domain use, rather than editing web pages! Is your point that only those who actually edit pages have an interest in Wikipedia's content? Philip Legge @ 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a collection which the founders and Wikipedia can be proud of. The article is developing nicely, and day by day its content is expanded. It is the most important resource of choral music and it would be a shame if it had to be moved to another place on the web as it is a vast work of hundreds of contributors. However, I agree that content could be improved, but the site has developed so much since it became ChoralWiki that we can see the goal it aims at. So again: Keep Jay_m 8:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • user has less than 50 edits and no talk page as of yet. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but does it matter? How many edits should I have to have an opinion? Jay_m 8:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't see why should be removed. If the rules say it should be removed, change the rules so it can be kept. (You can even deeplink to it with a [:ChoralWiki] prefix!) - Bemoeial 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete it passed deletion before and there is evidence of massive sock puppetry in this second AFD. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links pages of NIU and KSU predate the date of the rfd discussion, and should have been taken to account in that discussion. That they were not is incontrovertible evidence that the vote to delete was in error because of insufficient research on the part of those voting for deletion. The sites which list CPDL also list Werner Icking Music Archive, which also has a page, but which has not been nominated for deletion. How does one delete one, but not the other? ÞorsHammer 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interested parties not sockpuppets. As I stated above, I am a contributor to CPDL and an infrequent occasional contributor to Wikipedia, however I use both sites regularly as an "end-user". Wikipedia is the best site of its kind (free encyclopedia), and CPDL is the best site of its kind (free vocal music). The site may not be unique (other sites offer free sheet music) but it is certainly one of the most notable. Philip Legge @ 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't see the point of those who support deletion. Is there a pressure from the direction of music publishers? Does CPDL hurt anyone?Jay_m 9:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf blogosphere[edit]

I really don't think we need a separate article on each minor subset of the blogosphere. It's hard enough keeping a lid on the blog articles as it is. This appears to be largely an opinion piece anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with content merge The references on this article majoritively seem to be supporting the existance of deaf people, rather than the article name. However I feel that the issue of deaf bloggers probably does belong somewhere, just not on a neologism. LinaMishima 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no web directory. Gazpacho 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So deaf people use the internet. There's a shock! -- Necrothesp 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of change[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and possible original research. John254 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as OR, unless some references are provided. I have change in my pocket, too. eaolson 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - OR. Mattisse(talk) 16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list was sadly lacking. Added items 3-5, so you might perhaps reconsider. --Xrblsnggt 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pretty witty though, Xrblsnggt. Carson 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vaguely amusing, but certainly not encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Hawkins[edit]

Author of this article proposed for deletion now concurs that deletion is warranted, see discussion page for this AFD. KnightLago 01:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Wing[edit]

subject does not appear at all notable WP:BIO. First collection just published. 1330Ghits for "catherine Wing" Ohconfucius 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Valrith 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recent poetry degree and one collection - not yet notable enough. It's probably a matter of time and some more published work - this collection seems to have been quite successful. Dlyons493 Talk 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the reviews (including the Booklist review quoted on the Amazon.com page, I think she is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Cook[edit]

Being president of a few private colleges doesn't convey notability in my view. Catchpole 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cook played a key role in an historic change in the culture of Kalamazoo College through his role in the 1999 restructuring of Weimer Hicks's K-Plan. After he left, he went on to become the president of another college and seems to be playing a notable role there, although I am one not most qualified to document this (which is why the article is just a stub for now). He certainly has had a more notable impact on several institutions than the average college professor.K95 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look very notable. No claim of notability made for him as a chemist and now head of a small college, after being head of an even smaller college. -- Necrothesp 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The president of a college is more notable than the average professor. --Metropolitan90 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. He survives the notability test. SliceNYC 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90, being president of a college or colleges is notable. Yamaguchi先生 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act[edit]

No way is every minor bill passed by Congress that, in its entirety, names a building after someone notable. The self-reference only harms the article - not makes it more notable. zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep What makes this bill notable is that it is the first bill in history that contains an article from Wikipedia. This also gives our Pedia some degree of credibility. Tony the Marine 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm forced to agree. Keep. DS 16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bills introduced into the US Congress and passed into law are notable per se. John254 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, I'm an inclusionist. Second of all, I agree with Tony is his assertion of this article's notability. Thirdly, the article is well researched. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inclusion and not exclusion is the key point here. I have seen many fake Wikipedia articles on this website that have survived the test of time. Many of them look like they were practical jokes. You should spend your time hunting those articles and focusing less on such a valid article as this one. --XLR8TION 17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all above comments.Nnfolz 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Also would like to stress XLR8TION point. There are so many wothless articles around wikipedia and I don't get why u tag for deletion one that is well researched and writen.Nnfolz 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apart from the fact that it is just pretty dang cool that text written by Tony the Marine was used on a bill before congress, freedom of information is pretty important. Rmt2m 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We need more well researched credible articles not fewer. Why this would be considered for deletion is beyond me. Also I want to be able to research US laws on wikipedia, not to get lawyerese about them, but to find out details like the ones in this article.Lkinkade 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marine 69-71, if it's an article about a real law (there are many on wikipedia). I don't see any harm in the fact that it's a minor bill. Wikipedia is not paper. But the article could use better references. --Qyd 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A law passed by the US congress is notable and the fact that it has a wikipedia connection is even better. The article is well researched and written and belongs in this encyclopedia.--Looper5920 19:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well written article, and bill cites the Wiki. Should remain. --Murcielago 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatically KEEP - an excellent article about a relevant topic. The bill is the world's first legislative act to cite Wikipedia, and if that isn't encyclopedic (and historic), I don't know what is. I think some folks the deletionist bandwagon had better look for something better to do. David Cannon 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Factual, sourced, well researched record of a legislative act that is of historical interest aside from WP connection. Also the first legislative act to cite Wikipedia. Definite keeper. SWAdair 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Well written article about a marginal topic. I really don't want to see this cited as justification for lots of articles on bills to name a post office.-gadfium 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally this would be a pretty marginal topic, but given that it is a first (and especially because it is a first regarding Wikipedia!) it raises its notability quotient above other such bills. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I put on on DYK for precisely the reasons identified by Tony the Marine. Don't think it is vain or overly self-referential. -- Samir धर्म 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, partially because the WP reference makes it stand out, but I'd probably be inclined to vote keep even aside from that. I do recommend exclusion of Tony's name and user name from the article, though, both to avoid the potential appearance of vanity and in accordance with the general idea of the project as a collective work. Everyking 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the article is significant, and the mention of Wikipedia should be left in. Lots of people are discussing the validity of Wikipedia, and whether or not it should be referenced for papers/articles, etc.; if this is indeed the first bill to reference Wikipedia, that's notable. By the way, I find this reference disturbing; Wikipedia is a great place to learn, but a terrible place to cite. CalebNoble 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Any bill that passes is fair game for inclusion here. I would object if the bill did not pass though (few proposed bills are notable on their own until/if they get passed). --mav 14:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but, more so for the WP angle the the post office angel. I think post office entries should, generally, be put under that person's page, but I could be swayed the other way on that issue with good arguments. Huzzah, Tony!--DavidShankBone 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Tony, you're getting famous! Kidding aside, I think this is a relevant article to have. It is an historic moment for Wikipedia! Smylere Snape 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is an important historical event in Wikipedia. The credibity gained should be celebrated by every writer in Wikipedia. Antonio Martin 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This isn't just of interest to us. That a proposed law cited Wikipedia would be an interesting news item in most sources, we shouldn't bend over backwards to avoid it here. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per AnonEMouse. Rbraunwa 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. Yanksox 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alefox[edit]

It's (essentially) just a Firefox skin (hell, it's just the default skin with a couple of photos added to it) made by an Alex Albrecht fanboy. Fails WP:SOFTWARE (yes, I know it's only a proposal at this stage. Delete. --james(talk) 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete imagine if every skin for every piece of software got an article Lurker oi! 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete it its great. its a piece of history. James.W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.39.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to Alex Albrecht, which is probably where this belongs. Czj 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alex Albrecht. Even though I created the article in the first place, it probably doesn't need it's own article. Ihatecrayons 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alex Albrecht. Although, iRider has its own page and its essentially just a shell of IE. -Etienne 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Since it is now an Open Source project the development of this the Alefox browser may begin to become a seperate entity in the same way that Fire Fox has developed from the origional Netscape sourcecode. - GM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nomination. Definately fails WP:SOFTWARE. Stormscape 07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator due to a recent expansion of the article. John254 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Supremes '75[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and contains only a list of singers. John254 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article by a new editor, who works slowly. He's added a tracklist. Apparently he wants to document the post-Diana Ross Supremes' work. Fan-1967 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy kept. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosese Luveitasau[edit]

Was tagged as db-empty but isn't. However, I know nothing at all about Fijian rugby or Fiji's players - this article might be about a notable or a non-notable, a real player or a not real player. You decide. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep When I tagged it as db-empty it just had an info box with no explanations. Seems ok now. KnightLago 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoobody[edit]

This article is written as an advertisement. John254 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 1 article, 1 contributor, Afd removed by same contibutor in violation of Afd rules. Ace of Risk 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam --Xrblsnggt 17:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can do anything at Zoobody.com. Danny Lilithborne 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SPAM - speedied once already. Rklawton 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam, Spam, Spam... too bad we can't blank this stuff til a decision is made like we can with copyvios... — NMChico24 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but you can Wikify 'till then. Rklawton 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but it's pretty clear this article is headed for the trash heap. So there wouldn't be much point. — NMChico24 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, fails WP:BIO. He is the subject up for deletion, not his party. – Robert 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

František Alexander Zvrškovec[edit]

Nominated for CSD-A7 speedy deletion, but looks like it just scrapes past the criterion ("founder of a political party" is an assertion of notability). So it comes here instead. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. His party gets quite a few hits on Google. Since I don't read Slovak, I don't know how relevant they are, but keeping seems reasonable. -- Necrothesp 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment party won no seats in the last election per Slovak parliamentary election, 2006, indeed I don't see them on the list of votes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete New party with little or no apparent political support or votes at election. That would classify it as NN. Ohconfucius 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I asked one Slovak to stop by here. Pavel Vozenilek 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : his party got 3118 votes (here). I asked my colleagues in Bratislava, and they either didn't know who he was, or needed prompting with the name of the party and a long think before they did. Appears to be a very minor and extreme political minor figure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Williams (69)[edit]

Non-notable drummer. Only claim to fame is sueing John Lydon on the show "Judge Judy". Article created by a known hoax vandal, hense the fact that even the title of this article has a sexual reference. Ataricodfish 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted as blatantly copyright infringement.--SB | T 02:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo (song)[edit]

Doesn't contain any info, apart from song lyrics, that isn't on the artist's page, and since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, song lyrics (which aren't in English) don't have a place unless there's a clear reason that they're somehow notable. ben 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. 23skidoo 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to artist page, the song is notable, but with so little info given here and all of it (except lyrics) also in the artist page a redir will do. --Eivindt@c 21:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to artist page per Eivind. The lyrics are a copyvio, and this is the English Wikipedia anyway. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Eivind. -Ladybirdintheuk 10:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lollipop Lust Kill[edit]

Borderline case of prod. Hard rock band with one CD (not including the self-released one) on an indie label in 2002. Fails WP:MUSIC and the band is probably inactive since their home page is dead and all the info available on the web is dated circa 2003. (although to be fair there seems to be a MySpace page but comments also suggest that the group has split) The Google test gives an impressive 60 000 hits but in fact a much less impressive 423 unique hits.

  • Delete, nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not really a fan of the group (I'm certainly not the everyday fanboy type that comes to AfD to defend a lesser-known group), but I can vouch that they're quite well-known in hard rock circles. That said, I am having a hard time finding independent verification of their notability. The closest I've been able to find is evidence that they embarked on a nationwide tour of the US opening for Ministry[43], which should help it skim by WP:MUSIC if the source is considered WP:RS. But fair warning, you'll probably see at least a few fans in here to defend this article's existence. -- H·G (words/works) 22:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I edit some things and now it looks better, after read a bit about it, they had released two albums, and they had tour in United States with Coal Chamber and American Head Charge. This band is clearly notable in the Alternative Metal escene. --Neo139 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't heard the band or even heard of the band, and I strongly dislike all alternative rock, but the band seems notable enough due to US tour and two full-length albums. Prolog 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:MUSIC album release and touring criteria. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect.--SB | T 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Malarky Ying Yang[edit]

How notable, really, is a former president's daughter's cat? And I suspect that, even if it is kept, this article is doomed to remain a stub forever. Bduddy 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bduddy 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A president's cat is notable under "Historical cats". --DrBat 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a list somewhere that this could be merged and redirected into? --Arctic Gnome 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Carr[edit]

This article appears to be created as part of a promotional campaign for this individual and the company for which he works; he appears to be simply looking for a job, and there is no evidence of substantial achievement. Kebnabi 16:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Kebnabi[reply]

  • Delete Advertising. --John Nagle 18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion of non-notable personage - created by User:N7studios, who Carr apparently works for - the only contribution by this user, who is most likely Carr himself. Camillus (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's all of 20. -- Necrothesp 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Pringle[edit]

Hoax, nonsense -- plus WP:RS, WP:OR etc. Plus Art Bell is a living person, so WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. Mattisse(talk) 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable character on one radio show. NawlinWiki 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep <Edna Pringle is an important part of JC's on going calls to the coast to coast am radio show and this page will help inform users of jc's relationship to Edna Pringle> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.38.75 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Coast to Coast has over 10 million listeners who tune in nightly, and this article is just getting started. As more people view it, they will be able to correct it so it better fits with the Wikipedia guidelines. J.C. has his own page, and Edna should as well.
  • Keep, articles should not be deleted before they even get started 68.229.120.171 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruft. Don't care. -- Necrothesp 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article should be part of JC's article. In no way, shape or form should JC's article be deleted, however. Fmalcangi 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn character who can be mentioned elsewhere. Andrew Levine 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Robert 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukyanenko Bibliography[edit]

Information already exists at Sergey Lukyanenko. Andrew Levine 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nom. -- Necrothesp 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. Jack 00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Christian Webster[edit]

Contributed to by same author as Edna Pringle nominated above. Much the same sort of WP:V and WP:RS plus WP:OR. Plus Art Bell is a living person, so WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. Mattisse(talk) 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Meh, This could fit into the same area as Mr. Cranky though I'm surprised at the amount of references to JC that seem to have been brought in. On the talk pages there was a proposal to merge the article with Coast to Coast AM but it was never introduced as a proper merger. JC would be too large at this point for merge, however. --Brad101 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruft. Still don't care. -- Necrothesp 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not create this page, it was created by User:Infinitys_7th. Also, the discussion of the deletion of this page has already occurred; refer to the talk page for details. --Dr. Floyd 23:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that a few comments on a talk page is not the same thing as discussion on AfD. -- Necrothesp 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I see no grounds for deletion, as it addresses a recurring caller who has had frequent segments on the coast to coast am radio show.
  • Keep JC has been a part of Coast to Coast for over 10 years and Ian Punnett himself said that JC is as much a part of the show as he is. If you're going to remove the JC page, why not remove pages of *all* Coast to Coast guests and the hosts too?? 68.229.120.171 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • JC has also been a guest on the show, so why keep a page of another C2C guest like Ed Dames or Linda moulton Howe and not keep the JC page?68.229.120.171 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The people who are behind the constant push to delete this article need to back off and try to improve Wikipedia in other, more important ways. As others have said, JC didn't just start yesterday. Fmalcangi 04:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Listeners of this broadcast for years have been loyal, and the audience is growing..and even mainstream is picking up on the brilliance of Coast to Coast.. and JC is part of this tapestry of bright, witty, intellectual forum. 207.200.116.71

  • Keep Are you serious!? JC has been a lively part of the Coast to Coast radio show for years! Anyone new to the show might need to know who (we think) this guy is! Keep the page! --Ashley from Baton Rouge
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University street parties[edit]

Delete - Attempted prod removed with no comment, this article is unencyclopedic, NN, studentcruft, wikipedia is not a news site nor is it for something made up in school one day. -- pm_shef 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An article about street parties? I guess some could possible be merged into Queen's University, but the article is just naturally uncyclopedic. -Royalguard11Talk 17:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These street parties are not studentcruft or something made up in school one day. The parties are a huge concern that occupies the city's government and news for weeks before and after they occur. Last year's party made the front page of newspapers published in cities hundreds of kilometres away. And by the way, I did leave a comment when I removed the other tag. --Arctic Gnome 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things of purely local notability. Bearcat 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important for history of university. VanHalen 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This is VanHalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s 12th edit - pm_shef 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any important info can be merged into the university article. -- Necrothesp 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything worth saying about this (which is one or two sentences at most) can go into the Queen's University article; it's not important enough (or notable enough anywhere outside of Kingston itself) to merit its own separate article. Delete. Bearcat 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable in community, multiple accounts published in national newspapers. BoojiBoy 23:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it is improved makes clear a notability beyond local interest I'll reconsider. Nickieee 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat but can keep mention if Queen's University if you like -- Samir धर्म 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If most university clubs can't make the cut, this certainly ought not to. Agent 86 08:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. As this isn't "something made up in school one day", it isn't "studentcruft", and it is "notable", I can only assume that you want to delete it because it is more news-like than "encyclopaedic". Can someone please explain the difference between those two? Would it just be a matter of re-writing it to make it sound less like a newspaper article? --Arctic Gnome 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It quite is something made up in school, maybe one week instead of one day. Further, your assertion that it is notable doesn't deal with the comments above at all which demonstrate agreement that it in fact is not notable outside of Kingston and the Queen's community -- pm_shef 20:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can tell you for sure that it was not made up. Do I really have to find newspaper archives to prove so? The event had a thousand witnesses. As for notability, do you want me to find you a list of other articles that are only notable in one city? It was big news in Kingston for months and Wikipedia is not paper. --Arctic Gnome 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say "made up in school" I'm not saying it didn't happen. Clearly the event took place. I'm referring to WP:NOT, the event is a school related event with little history, no notability outside the community, and in fact doesn't make a real claim to notability. -- pm_shef 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a Kingston event than a University event, only half the people there were Queen's students. There is defiantly a history to them, student street parties have been an issue for over fifty years. Being a big deal to one community is enough to make an article notable; if it wasn't I could spend all day putting afd tags on articles about events in other communities (but I won't, that isn't a threat). --Arctic Gnome 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous villas[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous hotels was recently deleted on the grounds that the content was unverifiable and inherently hard to make NPOV since one cannot precisely define what a famous hotel is. This list has the same problem of course. Moreover, no one really agrees on what constitutes a villa! Pascal.Tesson 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Quite, the definition of a villa is so vague as to make this list useless. -- Necrothesp 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Horses IV[edit]

0 google hits Szvest 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outwitting the outdoors[edit]

WP:SPAM advert for start up company (March 2006) that offers only one product. Fails WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:N etc. Mattisse(talk) 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door: The Movie, cheap and easy. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of KND[edit]

Nonsense --Macarion 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of journalists[edit]

List is very incomplete, does not contain unique, useful information, and is completely superseded by Category:Journalists.

I am also nominating the following articles: List of newspaper writers, List of magazine writers because they are of a similar poor quality, and all three lists overlap anyway. Tntnnbltn 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if I want to find journalists born before 1900 I shouldn't have to wade through the entire category to find them. Kappa 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - completly unmanagable, and resultantly unencyclopedic and therfore very usless. Better to completely covert to a correctly sectioned category for management purposes. I would suggest before the list is deleted, that all the listed journalists that do not have their own Wiki entry are listed as requested Wiki entries. Rgds, - Trident13 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So for "management purposes" we should elimate any mention of which newspapers they wrote for, and any possibility of mentioning what they are best known for, or even what language they write in? Kappa 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the aforementioned reasoning. Slj 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Trident13. Mike Christie (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SteakandCheese.com[edit]

The website is apparently non-notable; the article contains no references beyond the website itself. John254 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendeding this AfD, and adding SteakandCheese. Same article, but with tons of external links inline. Kevin_b_er 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom.--Kchase T 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. NawlinWiki 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. —tregoweth (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non-Notable, Possibly spam website. --Corporal Punishment 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I've heard of it, but still don't think it deservers an article, let alone two. --Wafulz 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lest it become the next GNAA. Gazpacho 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Morey, but this is not a repost so not speediable. Has also been previously reposted at Robert A Morey. Main claim to fame appears to be having written some books, but it is really not uncommon for Christian authors to write numerous short tracts, which are readily published by specialist Christian publishing houses. Nothing substantive seems to have changed about the subject since the previous deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is speediable as a copyvio, though. In addition, he seems to have published a lot, but his books are all at 500,000 plus on Amazon (with the exception of one that is ~180,000) and most are in the one-to-two million range. This nomination may or may not be part of a Masonic plot. ;-) JChap T/E 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a copyvio, though the masonic plot remains open.— Dunc|☺ 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a pretty clear cut-and-paste from the referenced webpage with some material deleted and a few words changed. Not sure if that gets us over the copyvio bar ... JChap T/E 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you been back to the page lately? It's, like, totally different now. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So it is. Kudos to you and KillerChihuahua. Changing to keep. JChap T/E 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Guy, this has naught to do with the previous article. (In fact, until JoshuaZ pointed out that there had been a previous article, I was unaware of the fact). Morey has created much recent controversy regarding Islam, and as such merits an article (hence KC suggesting that one be written). Is the article topical, yes. Are we likely to need it in 10 years? probably not. But the same can be said for at least 10% of our articles. It might be nice if rather than re-AfD, you would wait to see what develops first. Right now, AfD's on an article less than 12 hours old smacks of censorship and bad faith is just wrong. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Yes, Josh is right -- sorry, Guy, I got a bit hot. One the other hand, your idea to delete Morey himself mightn't be a bad one.  ;)
  • Keep While I think Jim's comments about censorship and bad faith are innaccurate, note that there were serious keep votes in the previous AfD, and part of the reason it seems to have been deleted was as a reaction to the sockpuppetry by Jason Gastrich. Most importantly, Morey is notable within extreme-right evangelical christianity. JoshuaZ 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His book The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest-Growing Religion and the subsequent tract (same content with minor changes) The Moon-God Allah In The Archeology Of The Middle East has started a bit of a trend among right-wing Christian polemics who take his poorly researched weirdness as utter truth, causing a minor flurry of pulpits booming the news that Allah is a pagan moon god. Nonsense, but notable nonsense. Concur w/Guy that deleting Morey would help; that not being a viable option we should have an NPOV article on him for the curious. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this version then, now the article claims notability. The masonic plotters had better reward me. — Dunc|☺ 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Deleted by ClockworkSoul as (CSD G1 : Patent nonsense) and closed by SynergeticMaggot 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasion[edit]

  • Delete WP:NOT dictionary, and this doesn't even merit the dictionary KnightLago 17:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Carson 22:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Works Club[edit]

  • Delete fails notability test, nothing special or unique about this student exercise club in Manila, speedy delete tag was removed without comment KnightLago 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Student clubs are not normally notable. Dlyons493 Talk 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable student club. -- Necrothesp 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raidiese F. Branstein[edit]

WP:FICT Minor character in videogame. 2 hits in Google. John Nagle 18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete gamecruft (yeah, it's snobby, but better than citing all relevant policies). Danny Lilithborne 20:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Danny's snobby reasoning which I agree with.--Kchase T 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A8. Xoloz 05:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brosix[edit]

This is just an advert for a non notable company that appears 432 times on Google, and not at all on Alexa Andymarczak 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a description of a product. There are many such in Wikipedia - Skype, Instan-t, Tagworld, Imeem and many others. See list of many more here List_of_instant_messaging_clients. Probably its content needs editing, but this article is similar to many others in Wikipedia Stefantch 21:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete because most of the content appears to be a direct copy from the home page; however, I don't feel I'm lawyer enough to do that myself; this is a very short article, consisting of copying a few sentences and feature list; yet, a few paragraphs in the article appear to be non-copied. Strongly smells like a copyvio even in that case. In any case, Delete this; utterly non-notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain guru[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable website; no Alexa ranking; 21 unique ghits NawlinWiki 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication of meeting WP:WEB.--Kchase T 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Wafulz 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spam. Website for hikers in vancouver is really unencyclopedic as well. Just may well could have an article about a shop selling hiking boots in Vancouver. --Ageo020 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Vicious[edit]

Biography of a porn star unworthy of notice -- Selmo 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - hard to say whether this person is notable enough for an article. While Google returns over 300,000 hits for exact quote of name, even non-notable porn stars are widely distributed. As far as I'm concerned, there has been no celebrity status earned by this individual, but I'd like to see other comments. In any case, it desperately needs a cleanup if it is to be kept as an article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails WP:BIO, since it doesn't offer any mentions of this person in media beyond her own website. When people start writing articles about her, then we can. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's hot but this article fails both WP:BIO and the specific guidelines for notability of porn stars. So far she has not achieved any notability outside the existence of the porn itself and the whole world. Wryspy 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Barson[edit]

This was prod'ed by Btball as a non-notable bio. I slightly disagree. Madness is definitely a notable band, and this guy was its founder. Weak keep —Mets501 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as currently written). Keep based on User:JChap2007 edits providing verifiable sources of notability. I have no idea if Barson and/or Madness is notable or not. As written the article doesn't have any sources that let me determine that. If Barson is notable then I think it would be great if someone would add a source or two to the article to support that and then I'd be happy to change my delete to a keep. Brian 19:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Keep Madness was a huge second wave ska band, so it (and its founder) are definitely notable. I'll work on sources. JChap T/E 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - member (and a principle songwriter) of one of the most successful British bands of the 80's. That an article needs work is not criteria for deletion. Ac@osr 21:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that "an article needs work is not criteria for deletion". However, as originally written (when I placed the PROD notice) it was not verifiable - which is a criterion for deletion. As currently edited, thanks to JChap2007 it is verifiable and I've changed my position to Keep. In fact, at this point, I think an admin could close this out as Speedy Keep based on the current revision of the article. Brian 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • I agree this should be closed as a speedy but I would note that not verifiable is not the same as not verified. If all that's required are sources, the opportunity should be given to provide them or, better still, the effort made on the part of the nominator. See WP:OSTRICH. Ac@osr 22:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. That's why I only placed a PROD tag on the article :-) Brian 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Speedy keep in current format, founder of notable band. NawlinWiki 22:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Member of a notable band. -- Necrothesp 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a verifiable bio. — Reinyday, 00:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as being just a link with little to no content -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute zer0[edit]

This page is about a company that does not seem to meet the requirements for inclusion we have for Companies. The page has had a prod tag added which was removed by the creator of the article. -- RicDod 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication of meeting WP:CORP, as nom says.--Kchase T 20:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as well as non-notable. Google has the name lost in a sea of others who use the same term, especially what appears to be a band. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1, so tagged; almost no content other than link to company's website. NawlinWiki 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was don't delete as there was evidence presented that this meets WP:CORP. Article could use some work to assert importance more clearly though. W.marsh 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wealthtrust[edit]

Originally created by Mrushbenton. I tagged it with db-advert which was them removed by PEAR. After seeing the advert the original author agreed and blanked the page. I then tagged it with db-blanked which was again removed by PEAR, so I am bringing here. Does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 19:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, but move to WealthTrust (the actual name), Hetar Repeatidley vandalized the article. There is no evidence that the creator Mrushbenton wanted the article deleted, Mrushbenton is new to Wikipedia and never stated this anywhere. It is more likely that Mrushbenton was frustrated and angry with Hetar for marking his or her first article on Wikipedia as an advertisement and blanked it in anger and confusion.--PEAR 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PEAR, none of what Hetar did was vandalism. His actions were all mostly in line with accepted wikipedia policy and practice. (OK, so the db-author tag may have been inappropriate, but it wasn't vandalism) Calling someone's good-faith editing vandalism just inflames the situation.--Kchase T 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mrushbenton: I was experimenting with creating my first wikipedia article and did not realize that once edited, i couldn't immidiately delete it. I do not know who hetar is and am not angry or frustrated with him/her, nor did i attempt to do anyhting to any articles but my own. As the creator, i would like for it to be deleted as soon as possible. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrushbenton (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete as it fails WP:CORP. JChap T/E 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's some press coverage from local publications on their website [44], [45], [46]. It's not much, but it's enough to do an NPOV article. Do people think that coverage is enough to meet WP:CORP?--Kchase T 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the author has requested deletion. --Wafulz 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think that local press coverage merits meeting WP:CORP. Are you allowed to remove the db-author tag even though the author pretty clearly wants the article removed?

--Wafulz 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:CSD is sort of ambigious about answering your question. I removed it b/c I figured an AfD with at least one keep vote was enough to let it go through AfD. In any case, I've expanded it a bit with sources I found online. I think it now meets WP:CORP's liberal definition of coverage, which requires multiple articles, but doesn't specify that they have to come from a national source, for example. If others agree and it is kept, I will expand and polish this article, but I'm not going to spend more effort on it if it'll just get deleted. Of course, I now think we should keep it.--Kchase T 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP; there's not really even any assertion of notability. I looked at some of the Google hits; they all seemed to be ads or straightforward business listings. The "News" link on the company's own webpage doesn't have anything notable. Mike Christie (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anirvan Ghosh[edit]

Fails WP:BIO (autobiography) and WP:PROF Wafulz 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteweak keep (explained below) as it fails WP:BIO. Autobiographies are discouraged, but not forbidden.--Kchase T 21:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some material. I think the article now shows that he is more notable than the average professor. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not seeing it. How is he more notable than the average neuroscience researcher? (Obviously as a group they're not average people.)--Kchase T 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have looked at the diffs. It's not much, but I suppose it's enough. He's done important work.--Kchase T 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be another non-notable academic. -- Necrothesp 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the extra material TruthbringerToronto has added, it is clear that he is a well respected figure in his field. He has articles in John Hokins and ScienceMag. Unfortunate that a He himself created an article on himself. --Ageo020 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So he's written articles. So what? So have most academics. -- Necrothesp 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, No, he has articles written about him and his works in the external links. --Ageo020 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, okay. But it seems to me like they're just profiling an up and coming young scientist, as many articles like this do. In a few years he may be notable enough to have an article here, but I don't think he is yet. He's only held a chair for three years. -- Necrothesp 23:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Full professor at a major research university, which makes him notable enough for me (i.e. more notable than most of the professional sportspeople around here). He holds a named professorship, which I believe is considered somewhat prestigious in the U.S. up+l+and 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article was deleted once already under SPD as nn bio. --CPAScott 13:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I still support the deletion, I don't think prior speedy/proposed deletion falls under criteria for AfD dicussion. --Wafulz 18:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UpplandDoctor Bruno 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although plenty of Wikipedia articles bumble along without references (or with misleading/fake ones), when challenged in this fashion, an article simply must come up with real ones or perish. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShivLing of Makkeshwar[edit]

The belief that the Black Stone is a Shiva lingam seems to be held by ONE person, who has been attempting to enshrine it in WP's Kaaba article for many months. Balked, this person is now setting up his own article where he can claim that the Black Stone is in fact a Hindu idol.

As risible and unsupported as it is, this belief would be notable if many people held it; however, we have no evidence that anyone save a lone kook takes this position.

I would put this article up for an expedited deletion on "patent nonsense" grounds, but I'm not sure that it would appear as patent nonsense to everyone. I'm being cautious. Please vote to delete this article. Zora 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid article that discusses the ShivLing. There are many references to it and many historians discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs) 11:43, 13 August 2006

  • Important Request One of the sources listed on the page currently is a Brittanica page. Can someone please check and verify this? GizzaChat © 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That Brittanica page describes lingam worship. It doesn't say anything about the Black Stone. Zora 08:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. The cite is employed in a highly deceptive fashion. Of course, EB does not claim that the Black Stone is a Shiva lingham. This would otherwise be the most infamous of charges.Timothy Usher 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Don't call people kooks. There are about 245 hits on google, (majority blogs) but Hindunet has it on there too. Its merely a conspiracy theory, though it is rooted in fact.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was considering putting up the article for deletion myself, but I saw that the concept of ShivLing seems to be a legitimate concept. Nevertheless, the article can be recreated at ShivLing (or something like that) as an NPOV article, but in its current state it's completely POV and borders on OR and it seems as if it's easier just to start anew. Actually, if there's an article at lingam, there's no need for this to be recreated. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable... article appears to be an original research free for all. (→Netscott) 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Bucketsofg✐ 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep - I have heard this in scholarly works, and really if the Davinci code can get its own article, and UFO's, why not the Shivaling? Bakaman Bakatalk 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems to be all original research. BhaiSaab talk 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete - meaning that if the Shivling of Makkeshwar is claimed to be the Black Stone, then delete; however, if the Shivling refers to something else for which evidence exists, then possibly keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpatel (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - The ShivLing is a valid encyclopaedia entry and is relevant article in all encyclopaedia's. It is even mentioned in the Enyclopaedia Britannica. Religious beliefs claiming that it does not exist is not a valid reason for deleting the article.BookwormUK 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Where is it mentioned in Encyclopedia Brittanica? GizzaChat © 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources appear to be editorial on POV in nature; only 84 ghits [47], and zero hits at gnews [48]. Unless there's something I'm missing, this doesn't seem to have much of a footprint. Luna Santin 11:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits on the exact phrase, "ShivLing of Makkeshwar" are exactly one blog. The putrid smell of "original research" is rife with this article. (→Netscott) 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google searching with the exact phrase is not a good measure of its notability. Shivling itself is a redirect to Lingam and there are a number of other spellings for the word (Shivalinga, Shivaling, Shivalingam etc.) Also the "of" is some cases could be an "in." Personally, I think it is neither OR nor patent nonsense. It is just a controversial belief which may or may not have enough supporters to be considered notable enough on Wikipedia. GizzaChat © 07:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure I have read and heard that many Hindus believe that the Black Stone is a Shiv Ling. In that sense it may be notable enough but there is not enough sources on the internet to justify this. GizzaChat © 12:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep: The pagans are also described as the fire worshippers and I know for a fact that hindus also worship "agni" ie fire. The pagans used to worship idols as well which were liek the hindu idols. Muhammads' tribe used to have the black stone which they used to worship and also note pre-muhammad allah was the name given to the moon; as moon was also worshipped (allah comes from the word al-illah meaning the highest deity to be worshipped) also hindus worship the moon and sun... moon is chandr.. and sun is surya... there are ppl who worship the sun are called surya-vanshi and ppl who worship the moon are called chandr-vanshi (belonging to the lieneage of moon )... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 August 2006
    Account created 09:44, 11 August 2006; only edit outside user, user talk, and this AfD is to target of this AfD. --cesarb 17:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: shivaLing is a black stone that is worshipped all over india..remains of same shivalings are also found all across pakistan, afghanistan and iran. Since these places were once under hindu's; but was later taken over by the mugals. Who mutalated and broke everything that symbolises any other religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE1 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 August 2006
  • Delete as per nom. Lukas (T.|@) 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* I've heard of this too. It's extremely possible that blackstone is a shivling. Article needs more sources. Arabs weren't always muslims. They were also pagans.--D-Boy 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* keep it as a kind of conspiracy theory like Nine Unknown Men or eight immortals. remove any reference to the particular stone, if it is causing dissent. anyways, in support of common consensus. we have article where Gautam Buddha is suggested to be a Islamic Prophet. although it has been rejected by quite a few historians. Link is [49]nids 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep * It's possible that blackstone is a Shivalingam. Since the Shivalingam was also worshipped by cultures in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the distant past (& I believe by some Romani people even today, prob'ly why Hitler tried to kill 'em) it is entirely possible that it got absorbed into pre-Islamic Arab pantheon. This is speculation tho and should not be mentioned unless scholarly support is there. It's linkage with Classical Hinduism in South Asia is distant, and should be qualified as such, that's all.Netaji 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(as of now, I have changed my vote above from 'keep pending scholarly confirmation' to 'keep')Netaji 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There is no scholarly information, which is why the article should be deleted. If there ever is, then a new article can be created or the information included into Black Stone, but I severely doubt that ever happening, seeing as Hinduism never spread as far as Mecca, where inhabitants worshipped either Christianity, Judaism, or Semitic gods (both Northwestern and Southern) rather than Hinduism, which never spread that far west. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Completely agree with the above. I've tried to find some reliable sources regarding this and the fact is that there are none. BhaiSaab talk 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then the article should qualify that questionable sources say that the Shivalingam is just that. Since a claim has been made (by P.N Oak, a questionable "scholar" I'll admit) to that effect, the article should be kept, but qualified that there is no objective proof that the Shivalingam is a Shivalingam. Bear in mind that certain fanatic elements here are interested in keeping the "purity" of their race/religion from "Kaffirism" and, in the interests of that goal, would cheerily staunch the reporting of any issue, however controvertial it may be, that even suggests that there may have been a proto-Hindu connection with pre-Islamic Arabia (after all, similar elements wiped out a lot of the knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia for precisely the same reason).Netaji 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Being an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I can assure you I have no ulterior motives for deleting this article. The fact is, that if the theory is only proposed by a few fringe authors, then it's probably not worthy of inclusion unless that fringe theory becomes a popular fringe theory (which its google hits don't show) or accepted by the mainstream. Unfortunately Rumsfeld's rhetoric isn't going to help you out. Just because there's an absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but until there's evidence of "a proto-Hindu connection with pre-Islamic Arabia" proposed/verified by a verifiable source, there's no need for an article on this on wikipedia. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Partisanship is obvious from the fact that Abrahamics generally regard Dharmics as racially inferior to them and worthy of genocide. No Abrahamic would admit that Dharmic connections exist in any of their religion(s) because it would violate their racial/religious purity.Netaji 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Bottom line is, if muslims are allowed to say that Buddha was an Islamic prophet then this theory should also be listed.Netaji 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom.Timothy Usher 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. -- Szvest 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. The article is pretty small anyway and probably needs a change of name as well. So delete for now, maybe the supporters should look for some sources, find them and prepare a decent sized article in their userspace or something before putting it on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pending notable sources being used to support the title. His Excellency... 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One line of text? possible merge to "Black stone", pending actual scholarly or scholar-like verification, but certainly not worthy of its own article as it stands. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: even my vote will be for delete, if it is agreed that this article can be merged to "Black Stone".nids 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep this OUT of Black Stone, if you please. It's starting to come into focus for me. The people advancing this theory belong to a particular faction in Indian politics, the Hindutva folk. This is the faction behind the destruction of the Babri Mosque, at Ayodhya -- the mosque was destroyed by people claiming that it had been built on the site of a Hindu temple. Any claim that the Kaaba is built over a Hindu temple is a threat, it seems to me, a threat that the Kaaba could be torn down too. I see no reason to let this sort of political posturing into an encyclopedia article, particularly as the claim doesn't seem to be held by more than a tiny fraction of the Hindutavadis. (At first I thought it was just a lone kook -- the political implications weren't in focus; now I think it's perhaps one anti-Muslim fantasist and followers who would be prepared to support anything that offended Muslims.) If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Hindutva article. Zora 17:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:User:Irishpunktom is not even a hindu, let alone hindutva.nids 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment I tried to be careful in phrasing my comments so that I was referring to the person or persons with the websites making the claims, NOT to any Wikipedia editors. Hence the religious affiliation of any Wikipedians involved is beside the point. I apologize if my wording wasn't sufficiently clear. Zora 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
response - I resent your labeling of people like us as "fantasists". If you wish to make more personal attacks, I suggest you go to Chowk where there is no WP:NPA to follow. Of course the ASI results proved there was a temple under the disputed structure, but the facts must be biased then. "This is the faction behind the destruction of the Babri Mosque, at Ayodhya". Hah. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to promote the histories according to the ideologies of fringe groups.Similar to writing Vatican - is Vatika Bhawan and saying Red Indians were Pagans and ancient America was Pagan and therefore Hindu 62.189.60.30 15:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:That does not matter here. Fringe elements among muslims advance the notion that Buddha is an Islamic prophet, and this is mentioned on wikipedia. So must the Shiv Ling of MakkeshwarNetaji 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Park3r 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong recommendation for Delete - This is from the same P N Oak fantasy group of everything in this world being Hindu.According to this group Christianity is Krishna Neeti (Principles of Krishna)Muslim festival Shab i Raat in India becomes Shiva Ratri...and so on..TerryJ-Ho
  • comment Like I said before, fanatic elements interested in preserving the ideal of purity in their religion from "kaffirism".Netaji 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment what are your views on Gautam Buddha being portrayed as an Islamic Prophet.[50]nids 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid touching the comments of other users terry. And my point is that just as we mention Gautam Buddha to be an Islamic Prophet on the basis of lone assertion of an unknown scholar on wikipedia, so a similar assertion for shivling is also possible. (This is not an OR). We are not passing any judgements here. This can be as untrue as for Buddha being an Islamic prophet.nids 10:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touching others comments to differentiate between votes and comments - I dont think is wrong.
  • If you know Gandhi you will not fail to recognise that "unknown scholar" Maulana Abul Kalam Azad? Secondly, if that speculation is there - there is a basis in Muslim scriptures? Thirdly it relates to identifying a person not his property or relics in countries where Buddhism is spread and where Islam was never present as Muslim.Lastly, Muslims do not recognise Buddha as a Muslim prophet that speculation apart.Muslims don't go on to call Buddhists as Buddhist Muslims on the basis of such percieved speculation as Hindutva literature proposes to call Indian Muslims as Muhammadi Hindus, Sikhs as Sikh Hindus,Buddhists as Boddha Hindus.TerryJ-Ho
  • The article mentions it as a speculation on the identity of Dhul Kifl in the paras related to Buddhism in other religions of the world.Muslim holy book Quran mentions that all people and races of the world were sent messengers from the same God and Prophet Muhammed is the last prophet in that series.It mentions Jesus and Moses,Adam, Noah and other bibilical stories too...In a similar way some theologians have tried to speculate the identity of Zulqarnain in the holy book based on his description, who some say was Alexander the great.Most Islamic scholars disapprove of such speculations though and accept the identified prophets like Jesus,Moses etc..who also came thousands of years before Prophet Muhammed.Also such speculators have as far as I know refrained from laying claim to their statues, monuments,lands or other relics, physical or temporal properties, having relegated their interest to identifying the person mentioned in the book rather TerryJ-Ho
This is merely speculation also. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what scripture in Hinduism?TerryJ-Ho
Its not an inherently Hindu concept. Scholars agree that the KAaba was a pagan worship point before, and since there was evidence of trade between pre-Islamic Arabia and post-vedic India, the stone could very well have a lingam inside.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars agree that there was contact and trade between pre-Christian Ethiopia (Aksum) and India, yet no one proposes that the various Obelisks of Aksum are giant ancient Hindu lingams. Trade connections aren't enough evidence for the possibility to have any credence. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commentI'm not saying that the actual stone is a shivaling, I'm saying there is a lingam inside the stone. Pre-Islamic Arabians were pagans and housed their idols in the Kaaba. Since there were probably a good amount of Indians trading at the time, its entirely possible that a lingam was placed with the pagan idols.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Nids brings up a good point, Buddha came more than a thousand years before Mohd. Of course, myself, nids, Dboy, and Netaji are "Hindu fascists" [51] so I guess we have to be "disregarded" because we are "paid RSS agents"[52] .Bakaman Bakatalk 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please remove these out of context statements relating to other topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs)
    • Comment on Comment They point to a certain pattern of behavior that are contextual in this topic, is all.Netaji 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel they are relevant as some people are showing a bias in the AfD, denouncing it because of who is associated with it.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ViewDo.com[edit]

Apparent advertisement for very NN service. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:WEB. Czj 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I read what had to be read and I guess I just misunderstood but how does the totse.com article I saw in the past still stay up its clearly advertising on that website. totse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godfather89 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, Alexa ranking below 360,000; founded April 2006 (also per Alexa), as opposed to Totse, which has been running for 18 years. NawlinWiki 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Angelbo 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CastingWords[edit]

Fails under WP:CORP. One of the articles given holds no mention of the company, the other is a premium access account. The Tech Crunch link only talks about the business plan prior to creation and nothing else --Wafulz 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this article and have absolutely no relation with this firm, I am just a member of amazon mechanical turk and have found that this is a major player there. they have been mentioned in several pages and I originally looked them up on wikipedia but found no entry so decided to add one. Thebt 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wanted to mention that I believe that this falls under WP:CORP because it does have several mentions in at least 2 very notable publications (economist and NY Times) so it cannot be considered trivial by the WP:CORP definition. also, the articles were from the publications themselves and not press releases so this clearly is not excluded by the WP:CORP guidlines.

20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not going to comment on deletion or not, as I am a founder of this firm. I'm just going to state - A) We did not ask for this entry. B) The NYTimes article does mention us - but they screwed up the name spelling it "Casting Words". I don't want to junk up Wikipedia, but if the only problem here is a lack of media, there are a number of other reports - a recent salon article comes to mind: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2006/07/24/turks/index_np.html. I feel incredibly weird even commenting on this, if it's out of line just say so and I'll shut up. -- Nmcfarl 01:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nmcfarl 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) -- I feel even weirder editing the page so I'm not going to do that but clearly the 2 articles cited should be listed as:[reply]
    • Markoff, John (April 5, 2006). "Software Out There". New York Times. pp. E1, E8. Retrieved August 12, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) and
    • "Artificial Artificial intelligence". Technology Quarterly. The Economist. June 10, 2006. pp. 10–11. Retrieved August 12, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Comment None of the articles actually mention CastingWords (or any derivations of the name thereof)- Amazon Mechanical Turk already has its own article if that's what you meant. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. --Wafulz 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All three of those articles mention CastingWords. If the requirement is that they are exclusively on CastingWords, they are not. But all three of them include at least 1 on paragraph on the topic of CastingWords. Pages E8 (online p2 - paragraphs 19-21), and TQ11(online p1 'graphs 7,8), and the first 3 paragraphs of page 2 of the salon article. Nmcfarl 17:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no notability has been established. An interesting business model and the article can be reconsidered if this goes big. BlueValour 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Angelbo 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 12, 1809[edit]

Originally transformed into a redirect to February 12 [53]; reverted [54]. Subsequently {{prod}}ded [55] citing "Superflous and duplicitive of February 12; a weak combination of opinion and minutae."; reverted [56].

Despite apparent effort and a great many external and internal links, this is still a article which, once NPOV'd and cleaned up, amounts to "the birthday of two important historical figures". Much of the information about the importance of the historical figures in question should be (provided it isn't already) included in their articles: their accomplishments and importance do not confer importance, notability, or paticular significance to their birthdate. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely anyone will randomly search for this specific date and be surprised at what they find. Contains nothing that isn't (or couldn't) be on the normal Feb 12 page, or the relevant biographic articles. Keeping would set a bad precedent (and I'm not talking about GWB). The JPStalk to me 21:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JPS. NawlinWiki 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPS, no encyclopedic reason at all for this article. -- H·G (words/works) 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per The JPS, and it's unencyclopedic article, and it's just Date and year. *~Daniel~* ☎ 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and JPS. Essence of article already noted in February 12. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BookLover 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, I wrote the article. February 12, 1809 is probably the most important birthday of multiple persons in history. Maybe that's trivia, but IMHO it's at least as worthy an article as a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia. Krakatoa 07:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion that I can simply put the information in this article in other articles appears not to be true. When I attempted to add to the "Darwin Day" article this information, it was promptly reverted:[57]
      • Darwin Day falls on the same date as Lincoln's Birthday. Both Darwin and American president Abraham Lincoln were born on February 12, 1809. The organizers of the Darwin Day Celebration planned to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth in 2009, have written, "Lincoln freed American slaves from physical servitude while Darwin freed the human mind from the bonds of supernatural dogma. The positive influences of their legacies are as relevant in the world today as they were in the 1800s." [58] Both Darwin and Lincoln were on several lists of the 100 most influential persons of the second millennium A.D. (1001-2000), including those compiled by the Biography television series [59], where they were ranked as Nos. 4 and 23, and Life magazine [60], where they were ranked as Nos. 9 and 35.
    • Likewise, when I attempted to add to the Charles Darwin article simply "American president Abraham Lincoln was born on the same date." that was promptly reverted.[61] If this article is deleted, the information in it dies.Krakatoa 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I see that there was a debate about this some time ago, and most users agreed NOT to include the birthdate-coincidence in the Darwin article. [62] Krakatoa 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get 140,000 hits when I Google the following: Lincoln Darwin 1809 (birthday OR birthdate OR birth OR born)! [63] It seems to me that if the general population has that much interest in the matter (or a substantial fraction of that; I'll stipulate that some of these presumably are about something other than the birthdate coincidence, although I threw in the "1809" to try to minimize these), it's worth a one-paragraph article on Wikipedia. The Google hits and the above-cited debate in the Darwin talk pages show there's considerable interest in the thing. Why is it so important to delete this one-paragraph article? Krakatoa 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the releant fact is availible at February 12#Birthdays or by manually comparing the Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln articles, so it will not be lost. The other trivia is simply trivial and the relevant facts can be (and are) mentioned in the articles on the respective subjects. It's just that Darwin trivia is irrelevant to Lincoln and vice versa see Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln Eluchil404 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet-michael[edit]

Nonnotable website created by schoolkid, no Alexa ranking. NawlinWiki 21:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable website per nom. -- H·G (words/works) 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources indicating that this site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I made this article, and since it was submitted for deletion, I think I've edited it sufficiently enough for it to stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.126.122 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10/23/04[edit]

The article concerns an extremely non-notable musical performance, and reads like an advertisement. John254 22:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, certainly there's no valid claim to notability in this article about one performance. -- H·G (words/works) 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedy as basically an exlink. Gazpacho 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn ad.--Jersey Devil 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Travislangley 05:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even think individual shows by notable artists have their own articles. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as not making any sense. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It in india[edit]

The article is comprised entirely of unreferenced apparent original research. John254 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Its not an essay, not an article, just a bunch of bold and highlighted sentences which means nothing. --Ageo020 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Whenever someone signs an article it's a bad omen for its encyclopedicity. Fan-1967 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Yanksox 04:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in The Simpsons[edit]

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in The Simpsons and more recently as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs. Both debates resulted in no consensus, so I am relisting this here separately to see if we can achieve consensus. Please be clear and concise when leaving your recommendations. --Hetar 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Said Kappa on the previous AfD: fictional vehicles seen by millions of viewers. An alternative to separate pages on each vehicle. Couldn't have said it better myself. Czj 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C, fan trivia even as a list. Gazpacho 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This appears to be a bad-faith listing. A previous AfD for this article was closed just a few hours ago. Anchoress 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to second the notion for a speedy close on this AfD. This has already been nominated twice. Czj 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The vehicles are not a particularly notable aspect of the show. Yes, this has been nominated before, but since both times were "no consensus", I see no problem in re-nominating it. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I understand it, it is considered bad faith to re-nom an article less than a few weeks after a previous AfD. Anchoress 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep serious abuse of the system to nominate this the day after it gets off AfD. Also concur with CzG. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this; although I do think it's a bad-faith nom I agree that it's probably unnecessary list-cruft and fan-cruft. BUT. More important IMO is the fact that, as can be seen by the volatility of a lot of the Simpsons articles (List of neologisms on The Simpsons is one example), I think all these nominations of articles on Simpsons minutae are a complete waste of time and energy. Because The Simpsons is a current program (in production currently), and has such a large, obsessive and computer-savvy fanbase, it's useless to remove anything from the WP Simpsons World, because every single time an episode airs, dozens of fans of the show (myself included) go to WP with the intention of checking to see if some obscure, listy fact we noticed in the episode was documented in the relevant article(s), and if it isn't, we add it, even if the same fact has been added and removed dozens of times before. This (the Simpsons' AfD nom phenomenon) is at once like trying to exterminate mice with atom bombs (wasteful, destructive, and, ultimately, useless) and trying to hold back a tidal wave with a sandbag (hopelessly inadequate). I therefore implore the community to just leave these articles be for now, because until the show's run is complete, we're just trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with a bucket, and it's a big waste of time. Just MHO, (hopefully) respectfully submitted. Apologies for all the similes. Anchoress 04:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KEEP Had I seen this article earlier, I would have voted to delete, but it is WRONG to pop in this AfD nomination so quickly after it survived a previous discussion. Give the people who previously voted to keep time to improve this article before stalking the thing. Travislangley 05:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those who assert this is bad faith nom, I would ask that you please AGF, the only reason I nominated the article was because it was part of a dual listing. It should also be noted that I have remained neutral in this debate. I simply feel that we will benefit from a clear consensus (ie put this issue to bed once and for all) whether that is keep or delete. --Hetar 07:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hear what you're saying but I think both your points are without merit. First, if you look at the recently closed AfD, many posters clearly differentiated between the two articles nom'd. Any of those editors could have criticised the double nom, and the closing admin or the nominator could have re-nommed or split the noms if having two together 'poisoned the well' so to speak. That didn't happen. Second, the only way this issue will be 'put to bed once and for all' is if the article is deleted, which IMO indicates a clear agenda on your part. To wit, a 'consensus' to keep would not preclude the article from being nominated again in the future, as can be noted by the numerous articles that are nominated for deletion over and over even after clear conclusions to keep. I respectfully suggest that you chill out on this issue for a bit, and if in 6 weeks or so you still bothered by the 'unclear consensus' of the previous AfD, if in fact you still remember this article ;-) you can submit a nice clean re-nom and no-one will be crying 'bad faith'. Anchoress 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep If this article had not been at AfD last week, I would vote "very weak keep". Is the article listcruft? Basically. However, it is cruft for one of the most popular, well-regarded, and influential television shows ever, which makes its cruft a bit more notable. However, my vote is for a speedy keep because the article just survived an AfD (albeit through lack of consensus). Do I think this is a bad-faith nomination? Absolutely, 100% not. Yet I still think it's unfair to ask for consensus on an article for which there was no consensus just a few days prior. -- Kicking222 23:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate list of minor trivia which is just the sort of stuff that we don't do here, or so policies tell us. The fact that there are no sources cited tells me that somebody sat down with pen and paper and watched the episodes to compile this, making it WP:OR. No rationale (and I use the word loosely) for keeping given even mentions any of the alphabet soup of policies there are to pick from, which argues very strongly that there isn't any basis for ignoring policy here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Peregrinefisher 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - DXRAW 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above JQF 01:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CABAL Online[edit]

Prod removed without discussion. Article doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE which both could apply, doesn't assert any importance in general. --W.marsh 22:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entered my thoughts on the discussion page... wrong page? Pah, fine, delete it. Nobody's edited, and I'm a godawful writer. Now excuse me while I go overdose on my Anafranil. --Roderick Levingston

  • Delete - no evidence of notability put forward. Though I guess if humanity is about to be purged that might overtake this AfD :-) BlueValour 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Angelbo 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (1992 film)[edit]

Non notable film by a director whose article should have been deleted. [64]. Google hits only give wikipedia entries.[65] I am also nominating another film of the same director ABHAAS for the same reason. Ageo020 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A virtually null stub version of the director's article ("This is a place holder for Bijaya Jena, an actor, producer and director.") was AFD'd at an earlier date; that AFD does not apply to the vastly longer and more detailed version that now exists at her title. I'm withholding judgement on the films, pending further information, but speaking as an admin, the situation is as follows: the director's article is not deletable as things currently stand — if you still think she's non-notable you'll have to conduct a new AFD on the current version. Since her own notability has to be reassessed, her film is not automatically nn. And since I'm not hugely familiar with the Indian film industry, I'm not willing to assert that it's non-notable just because I've never heard of it. No vote; require further information. Bearcat 00:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and Redirect - the entire text of both articles is already in Bijaya Jena's article. Duplicating information is unnecessary and bad practice (the daughter article is not always updated when the parent article is). BlueValour 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please explain why (this is a discussion not a vote). All the material currently is in the main article so why do you think it is needed twice? BlueValour 18:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree it doesn't make sense. Merging is not needed, the info is already there. BlueValour 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Aiyangar[edit]

Non notable actor(possibly vanity). Google hits reveal wikipedia entry.[66].Also crystal ball gazing as article says of a possibility of a movie with Ang Lee Ageo020 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to unverifiable, could even be a hoax --RMHED 23:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable page. Travislangley 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not well known outside Mumbai and not seen in 90s and reports that he his making a comeback and no source at all Doctor Bruno 23:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_12&oldid=1116878496"