Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

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 speedy keep -- Samir धर्म 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logduz[edit]

This is non-notable. There are thousands of small villages in Russia, and most of them are historically or georgaphically insignificant. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Question Why is this deletion proposal in both the August 20th and August 26th lists (and at the top as well)? -- ArglebargleIV 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Named places, including villages, are normally considered notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Physical town, just happens to be in Russia. (There are thousands of small towns in the United States too) Unless reasoning for it being a hoax, I see no reason not to keep it. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable. If this article were to be deleted, what of articles like Euljiro 3-ga Station? Definitely keep. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree with keep, notability for subway stations is different than notability for small villages, and thus can't be compared. ColourBurst 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definately notable. Bradcis 04:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the small county where I live, even Census Designated Places have their own entries in WP. Why not the rest of the world? Seaphoto 04:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—What's acceptable for 1st world countries should be acceptable for 2nd world countries. Williamborg (Bill) 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all real places, tiny or huge, are notable. Not only we should include 1st world nations, but even developing and third world nations. That's the beauty of an online encyclopedia. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:01, 27 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyNCRE (My No Commission Real Estate)[edit]

You don't have to be a pirate to find real estate treasure!

Delete. Advertisement for company that does not meet WP:CORP. Twenty-five unique Google hits for the term "MyNCRE". ... discospinster talk 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Irongargoyle 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 100% advertising for nonnotable business. NawlinWiki 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails CORP. SynergeticMaggot 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all of the above. Tarret 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Another Wikipedia abuse as an advert. As above, also fails WP:CORP and is a small-area business. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well written nom. This discussion needs a pirate -- Samir धर्म 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible. Aplomado talk 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, poorly written, does not meet WP:CORP and not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after I tried to put a PROD tag on a recreation of this at a slightly different name only to find that User:Zoe had speedied it before I could even go to let the author know what I was doing. Quick work, that. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Allow me to state the reasons why this article should be deleted.
    Firstly, this company has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
    Secondly, this company is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.
    Thirdly, the article is very poorly written as well.

All these reasons stated clearly shows that this article does not meet WP:CORP. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:11, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BubbleTALK[edit]

Contested prod. Bacon, eggs and adspam. Opabinia regalis 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You forgot toast and jam. SynergeticMaggot 00:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ♥ FaerieInGrey 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — The product/innovation is actually intriguing, yet the article author went about it wrong and has created an adspam. However, BubbleMotion, the company that created this service, might just be able to hold up on its own (barring advertspam) with mention of this in it. Just my $0.02 -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where people can send voice as a message instead of text." Isn't that a phone? Regardless, delete as adspam. It shows scant Google hits anyway, and being innovative is not the same as being notable. Aplomado talk 01:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the article itself is poorly written, probably by a non-native English speaker, but subject of the article has been written about by a mjor cell phone manufacturer Ercisson and made it on to Engadget with only a little bit of research. -- Whpq 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete - semi-Notable subject, badly written, but not that notable. --andrew 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please allow me to point out to you that there is no official policy on notability. Please view WP:N. However, I agree with you that this article is badly written. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable product, albeit "innovative". It's easier to use than voice mail, and yes, at least one Singaporean cellular service provider provides it as an extra (not sure whether they still do, that was last year when I heard of their launching this service). Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. teh adspam --W guice 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks verification in article and reads like WP:SPAM.-- danntm T C 17:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam that doesn't even bother to explain the difference between this and leaving a message direst to voicemail (a long established service). Nuttah68 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Congratulations, you've invented the walkie talkie. --Xrblsnggt 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:20, 27 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 and redirect to Etagnières.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etagniéres[edit]

Hoax I think. More substantiation in the article's talk page. studerby 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything on Google that speciffically relates to this other than this article. Tarret 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add Comte d'Orange et Etagniéres to the nomination, more of the same hoax from the same author. Fan-1967 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten. The talk page makes it clear that there is a real Etagniéres - as such, that is what this article should be about. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article you are reffering to would be found at Etagnières. Tarret 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - well spotted. I was going by what was written in the talk page and didn't notice the mistake. In that case, a redirect without any merging seems in order. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comte d'Orange et Etagniéres[edit]

Apparent hoax See the articles talk page for more reasoning. studerby 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For same reasons as in Etagniéres. Tarret 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — After reading the talk page and article, I researched the term. There were zero hits across the search engine board. Unless adequate WP:RS are shown, I have to vote delete based on it not being verifiable. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kinda sounds like "Count of Orange and Tangerines"? Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without question a hoax. Aplomado talk 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, and no WP:V -- Whpq 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without question a hoax, no sources. --Barnaul 14:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A hoax - check edit history of author Seaphoto 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. Incidentally, Switzerland and the Swiss cantons have always been republics. Consequently, there have never been any "accepted titles of nobility in Switzerland" that I know of, even though the ruling families in some of the ancien régime cantons before the Napoleonic invasion were de facto nobility. Sandstein 17:49, 27 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 Teke (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CANICAS TEQUILA and Canicas[edit]

[Check Google hits]; 6 of them, so it's hard to say this is a notable product... this is nonetheless a formatting nightmare, and I was almost about to tag it as nonsense. Delete (|-- UlTiMuS 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Identical article under the name of Canicas--Wafulz 01:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So nominated. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Searching both for the Beverage Tasting Institute and Canicas yields no results of merit, so I am calling shenanigans of product pushing unless WP:RS can verify medals won and how it is "super premium". -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The brand is actually "Tequila Canicas" which has an identical article (Canicas). The Institute does exist, but the brand is not notable enough to merit an article anyway- even its own "In the press" section is largely ads and trivial mentions. Also, the Institute's website has no results for both "canica" and "canicas". --Wafulz 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom it is a formating nightmare Æon Insanity Now!EA! 04:18, 28 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 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Kathmandu[edit]

Advertisement. Would have WP:PROD'd but this article has a previous AfD closed as delete here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Kathmandu. The new article has references and pictures, but I don't think this qualifies as a notable eatery -- Samir धर्म 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination withdrawn. Article has expanded and, despite the socks, there is assertion of notability that may be substantiated by more information forthcoming from the original author. I'll work on the article with the original author, and if it's still insufficient, I'll re-nominate -- Samir धर्म 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have to disagree with Samir. It certainly is not an ad. the user who created must think it is important and notable. But to me, an Indian restaurant is non notable. --Ageo020 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still not notable, and fails under WP:CORP and WP:V --Wafulz 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak Keep 500 google hits and the newspaper award make a fair (although not great) case for notability. I don't see how it fails WP:V. Weak on the WP:CORP count, but it's not spam. Irongargoyle 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment where is the WP:CORP in the article? "Winner of the Observer Reader's best Indian restaurant in the UK 2000" does not qualify as multiple non-trivial works published -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The Observer has been in circulation since 1791 and was the worlds first Sunday Newspaper so I regard its opinions very highly. Recent modifications should bring this articals WP:CORP up to speed. Harbourcoat 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A readers choice poll in any newspaper does not make a restaurant notable. Wikpedia is not a place for people to advertise restaurants. -- Samir धर्म 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just not notable enough. Aplomado talk 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel it meets the WP:CORP and WP:V guidelines. I live in didsbury and know of this establishment. I will see if I can dig up some stuff to add to the page. JasonNox 01:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that it will add some more culture to Wikipedia That cant be a bad thing. Ageo020 you comment about the restaurant is not correct I think it is an Nepalese business. I will wait and see what Jason adds to the artical. SmegTronic 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment second edit ever is to this AfD. It must be laundry day -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reader's choice awards are a complete hodgepodge and means very little. Something a bit more substantial than that will be needed. -- Whpq 03:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... listed on several dining websites and winning a reader's choice award adds up to "so what?" as a majority of restaurants can probably make that claim. No evidence that WP:CORP is met. WP:NOT Zagat's Guide or the Yellow Pages. --Kinu t/c 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i've seen fast food restaurants make flyers more substantial than this article --W guice 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The award is from the Observer, a leading national Sunday newspaper in the UK, not a local newspaper different place each week thing. Nuttah68 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Nuttah68. Daniel's page ☎ 01:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should stay I feel. I would love for JasonNox to add some more information to it Harbourcoat 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it meets WP:CORP and living in didsbury I know how important this establishment is in the North West. Feel some people are on a power trip to shut down anything that is non-conformist to there personal views. The Great Kathmandu is here to stay and I will be adding verious other important articals for my fellow residents of Didsbury and the North West of England. Afterall, wikipedia is international right? MujiKha 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is alot of information about the business on the site now and if you ask most people in the north west about the Great Kathmandu they will tell you of its importance. The detail contained with in is no different to most of the establishments listed on wikipedia and I for one have not heard of some of them either and feel they have less importance then this artical. if you check google the Great Kathmandu has over 900 hits and is one of the first to come up when you type nepalese and Didsbury. The fact that people have logged on just to comment about this deletion shows that they care enough about this artical. I have informed people at the AGM of the Yeti Assoc. The Yeti Assoc is a organisation that tries to promote Nepalese culture in the UK and the world. Expect to see more information added to the artical by its members and suporters. More Nepalese related articals will follow. Harbourcoat 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, unsourced, advertised, drivel.-Kmaguir1 06:09, 31 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.--Andeh 09:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Totter[edit]

[Check Google hits]; about 2C, but only maybe 3 are relevant. Non-notable fancruft. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete reads like nonsense. The last line is "Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox" and if that's true then it's a test page and should have stayed there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not as notable as Barry Trotter or Tanya Grotter. --Ageo020 01:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails under proposed criteria for WP:BK and criteria in WP:V. Zero relevant google hits, no mentions in the news. --Wafulz 01:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fanfic at best. -- Whpq 03:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've heard of this before, but if every fanfic got it's article, it would be- ugh. Nevermind. Just delete. --andrew 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD G2. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:40, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbass productions, Alan Farrey, Dumbass: The Movie[edit]

[Check Google hits] about 500. almost all of which are google video/myspace/angelfire/ other nonsense. Delete because it would be impossible to find reliable third-party sources, as well as failing WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I understand your concern. May I just clear one thing up, though, Dumbass Productions is not a jackass copycat group of people, if anything it's the antithesis of it. Real films are made by these guys and have been released, admittedly in small numbers, in Co. Leitrim. I really understand your concern and I hope we can find some sort of middleground. Wikipedia is a huge resource of information and I think we can find something we both agree on. Jiei 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also! I know for a fact that the company is undergoing a name change to dispel the very associations which are the basis for you wanting to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiei (talk • contribs) .
  • Perhaps it would be wise if you read WP:V and WP:CORP so we're both on the same level about what is and isn't acceptable Wikipedia content. And I am not nominating this article because of the title, since that is not a valid deletion criterion. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reason for deletion is no "Jackass copyism," but rather that the company and its products and staff are not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. They do not meet criteria set out under WP:CORP or WP:BIO, and are also not verifiable. --Wafulz 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is to judge what is notable enough? There are very loose definitions and it's impossible to say! I can understand why some of what you say may breach various policies and guidelines but at the same time I feel it's far more notable than some stuff listed on Wikipedia. I shan't argue the deletion of Alan Farrey and Dumbass: The Movie but I request that Dumbass: Productions remains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiel (talk • contribs) .
  • Who is to judge? The community. Which is what we are doing right here. And basically, what you're saying is: Don't delete, because there is much worse crap hanging around. And if that's the case, please help us and nominate that other stuff for deletion as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I seriously doubt any of them will remain, Jiel. You give us no reason to care about the subject of the articles or say to ourselves, "Yes, this is worthy of an encyclopedia article." The best you've given us is a movie that won a monthly award from a random website. You've got to do better than that or the article is going to be removed. Aplomado talk 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The reason for deletion of the original article is biased because of the connotations of the name, as shown by references to its ambiguity and the quality of similarly named "sites".

2. You do not need to care about it. This article is not relevant to you. I mean "random website" proves it - it's the biggest national Irish teen website. It is worthy of an encyclopedia article because Wikipedia is universal, international site and the article is relevant to a lot of people. This is the problem. It is not relevant to you, therefore you don't care and you have the power to delete it (or to request its deletion ;) ) Jiei 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the site is relevant to a lot of people, you need to show this. I don't need to care, but someone does, and you haven't proven this. We're not just going to take your word for it. Aplomado talk 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can I prove it? Seriously? Discrimination. Jiei 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check out WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE, and especially WP:CORP. Aplomado talk 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't spout that rubbish. You think I haven't read such guidelines. You read them. I'm not going to convince you because you're prejudiced, most probably American and I don't care anymore. Jiei 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot, speedy A7 Alan Farrey, and stop being such a dumbass, Jiei -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate the fact that one prejudiced guy can dispute this, and others can simply agree and that's that. Delete away with Farry and the movie, I really shouldn't have uploaded them, but deleting the company would be wrong. Aside from that, your dismissal of SpunOut is really hurtful! I hate that mentality. It's a huge website. What, it's not american? :|
      • I'm sure SpunOut is as popular as you say, but if we start giving out articles to everyone who wins a monthly award from the myriads of teen websites on the internet, Wikimedia is going to run out of disk space.
      • Wikipedia is about building consensus. We're not all out to get you. We don't think the article is notable enough, having been given little reason to think it is. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Don't take it personally. Aplomado talk 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let's not get too touchy here. Crystallina 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- fails to meet WP:CORP, and WP:V -- Whpq 03:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:V; company fails WP:CORP, individual fails WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total Dumbasses. --Xrblsnggt 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some stunts in Jackass suck poop; but this article sucks more poop. --Nintendude message 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Alan Farrey" gives 3 google hits, and 2 of them are wikipedia. Not notable in the slightest -Ladybirdintheuk 09:06, 30 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PromptPM[edit]

[Check Google hits], only 3. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, and probably WP:SPAM. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Andeh 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The PromptPM system is a web based Project Control, Organization and Management Toolset that allows all the project stakeholders to come to a unified application platform in order to maximize the returns on a project." Titillating. Delete. Aplomado talk 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SPAM - the features are a complete cut and paste off the company web site. -- Whpq 03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A8. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:10, 26 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 & Major Clean up.--Andeh 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Super Smash Bros. Melee[edit]

  • Delete, the first half of the article is just a list of characters and their symbols, I've added their names to Image:SSBM-SelectScreen.png. The second part is game guide'ish explaining the characters attacks/special powers etc/moves how to do them etc - ". Falco's Up+B and Forward+B attacks aren't as long-ranged as Fox's". Suppose it's also fan-cruft. Not really an enyclopedic article, which is why I've nominated it. Andeh 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good luck dealing with the shitstorm that accompanies all game-related AfDs. Aplomado talk 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And I so do wonder why people vote keep. Hmm, might be because most of the delete voters know nothing about the subject matter? Havok (T/C/c) 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep w/ cleanup. Even though Wikipedia is not a game guide, SSBM is one of the best-selling GameCube games and ranks in the top 10 on NP charts even after 4 years. It most likely is a Players' Choice title, too. The guidecruft needs to go, however, and should be made into prose. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the game-guide content goes, then it's just a list of characters/symbols and some descriptions of the minor characters.--Andeh 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of the playable characters on the main SSB:M page should suffice. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The SSBM page doesn't actually have a list of playable characters, so that will have to be added in. ColourBurst 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's what I meant. Move the character list back to the main article. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I split this page off long ago with the exact intent of getting the cruft off the main SSBM page. Nifboy 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Once you take out the cruft, there's not enough left to justify a separate article. Ace of Sevens 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move the list of the playable characters back into the main article. BryanG(talk) 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean-up, maybe make it an article covering both SSBM and SSB so it's something like ""Characters from the Super Smash Bros. series". TJ Spyke 07:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or smerge to Super Smash Bros. Melee: the only arguably encyclopedic information here is the actual character list, which could usefully be placed in the game article (which currently has more information about characters that didn't appear in the game than characters that did!). The characters themselves, all being be famous Nintendo characters or cameos from other games, should already all have their own articles or be described in the articles from their respective games, so there's absolutely no point having yet another article about them that will just end up being filled with random trivia and redundant information. — Haeleth Talk 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A list of characters being spun off from an article on a popular beat em up is not unreasonable, but this list fails completely, concentrating on trivia such as alternative colour schemes, logos, redundant information ('Mario from the Mario series') and cameos from minor characters.--Nydas 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up, as said by TJ Spyke. Rename as "Characters from the Super Smash Bros. series." Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 15:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup My reasons? This is a popular game, the characters are important to the game, and I can't forsee any chance of merging it into the main article. AdamBiswanger1 16:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Cleanup As far as I know, all these characters are already present in other games. The main article needs a list of playable characters and the guidecruft needs to go. This would make it concise enough to go back in the main article. Quendus 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More or less what Haeleth said, actually. Quendus 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination --Mecanismo | Talk 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim down and Merge with Super Smash Brothers Melee. The character list is essential information and belongs on the parent page in the first place. (It's far more important than the hoaxes or the debug menu, IMHO). Zagalejo 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment, it appears the main reason to keep is that it's a popular game. But does that mean it can have a game guide and other fan-cruft? Is it a ground-breaking or historical game? I agree with the major clean up and merge with Super Smash Bros. Melee, the characters from Super Smash Bros. are in the main article, surely this could be too.--Andeh 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up Edgecution 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per above. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truncate and Merge There is an immense amount of information here that does not belong in an encyclopedic article (e.g. the degree of severity of Link's Up+B attack). There is a significant amount written in long-list style when a comma-separated list would do (like the #Characters symbols section). It seems like there is also quite a bit of original research (e.g. Tingle: A merry fairy wannabe character...). When all of this stuff is cut out, the rest should be merged into Super Smash Bros. Melee (as there shouldn't be too much left). -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The characters were originally moved out as they were taking up too much space in the SSBM article. I suppose I'll go for merge them back in and remove all the stupid cruft. Hbdragon88 05:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per. above. Havok (T/C/c) 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment, OK, I'm all for mass clean up.--Andeh 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a little cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape: Stronghold of Security[edit]

pointless content and unencyclopedic Edtalk c E 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, it's a guide to a game, merge with a guide at GameFAQs.com. Made by new user Dudemangm18 (talk · contribs · count) probably not aware of policies/guidelines at time of creation.--Andeh 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a blatant violation of WP:NOT. Not to mention that this article is being eaten alive by templates. I feel like adding another one for good measure. Aplomado talk 01:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, there are more templates than content!!!--Edtalk c E 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, yet more evidence that Wikipedia is turning into the RuneScape FAQ. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of game information. --Kinu t/c 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. What's with Runescape fans and clogging up Wikipedia with guides on how to reach the Mystical Fortified Secure Stronghold of Fairy Gold Dust? Anyway, fails WP:NOT in that we are not an indiscriminate compilation of information. --Wafulz 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not even worth merging as it already has a paragraph in RS Mini games. Ace of Risk 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as Runescapecruft. Until every more-notable MMORPG has as many articles as Runescape appears to be getting, Runescape's cruft articles should be deleted. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh please don't give them any ideas. Aplomado talk 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Dark Shikari. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. RFerreira 06:58, 29 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.--Andeh 09:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buda Dangol[edit]

Non-notable actor/musician. From the musician standpoint, fails WP:NMG. From the actor standpoint, there are no verifiable citations that he was in any films (including Nepalese films) and IMDB does not list him [1]. -- Samir धर्म 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Aplomado talk 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VAIN, and no sources for WP:V. Note that there may be a little bit spamming going on in that The Great Kathmandu which happens to be up on AFD is mentioned twice int his article. -- Whpq 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:37, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! ETC[edit]

[Check Google hits] basically one unique hit, the site itself, and the rest are irrelevant. Failing WP:WEB and WP:V since the only real source is the site itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. For future reference, I would prod pages about non-notable websites like these. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but check the username: YugiohETC (talk · contribs). In my experience, someone that goes out of the way to make an account for spamming a site won't hesitate to wipe away prods. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Buy an ad. Aplomado talk 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I play Delete in attack mode. Danny Lilithborne 02:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:SPAM, apparently not even notable in the Yu-Gi-Oh! fanverse. --Kinu t/c 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, as per above. -- Reaper X 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a billboard. --physicq210 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what an unnoteable website! - Blood red sandman 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry, this was kind of a trial thing. I would like if someone could inform me more about this though, as I wanted to make one for ETC like Pojo has one. could someone inform me what I should follow, as I'm new to Wikipedia.! - User:YugiohETC 12:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To answer User:YugiohETC's question, we do not put articles up for Web pages such as the one in the said article. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREME delete as this website sucks poop. --Nintendude message 00:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 10:48, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time 106.8[edit]

Is this A7? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no, I do not think so. Generally, radio stations are notable. I haven't seen one that wasn't. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Check Google hits] is a bit disappointing, but most of them are completely unique. Against A3 deletion because there is room for expansion. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, feel free to add content then, but db-empty is db-empty. Aplomado talk 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It looks like A3 to me. Aplomado talk 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete now that it actually has content. I don't think the simple existence of a radio station warrants an article, however, and this article really doesn't assert any notability. Aplomado talk 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some content there now (although it could have been A3 before, it was never A7 as that applies only to people and groups). Yomanganitalk 11:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of radio stations on here, right? StevenBao (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, consensus appears that radio staions are notable. Nuttah68 20:23, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texags.com[edit]

WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB. BBtec 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for all the above -- Whpq 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. Reads like semicoherent WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nuttah68 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Put down the beer bong and do some homework. --Xrblsnggt 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete totally useless to the project - Burn It - Blood red sandman 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously, as incoherent nonsense, although it should be noted that (1) the claim about being the first to expose the Bomar thing is actually true - it was published on TexAgs.com 8 months ago and (2) TexAgs.com is very well known in the college football community and this deletion should be without prejudice. A well-written and sourced article on TexAgs.com would be very much appropriate. BigDT 19:05, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medrad Inc.[edit]

WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:NN. BBtec 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this is probably spam, but that is a NPOV issue which should generally not be brought to AFD. I think it passes WP:CORP fairly well with 7 instances of independent coverage on news.google.com. There are 60,000 Google hits as well. I think the claims of inventions bear some particular investigation, it would be nice to see them well-sourced. There are a number of lawsuits out there concerning the company too. Irongargoyle 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree on above, expansion needed. StevenBao (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Sufficient notability. Williamborg (Bill) 05:08, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Howard Grubb, Parsons and Co. Ltd.[edit]

nn company. BBtec 02:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This company was a very important manufacturer of telescopes. They designed and built the optics for several of the major telescopes around the world currently in use - see the article. The article is a stubb at present as I only just added it . The company sponsored lectures at Durham University [2] (haven't had a chance to add that yet) and there are some great images that can be added when I figure out if they are allowed [3]. I'm sure this article is nn to non astronomers but I assure you that there are few in the astronomy world who will not have heard of them. Sophia 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that there were references to this company in other articles (one a red link) before I created it. Sophia 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This link also shows that it is common for telescopes to be referred to by their size and manufacturer [4]. Sophia 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already a redirect for this. Sophia 21:04, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istegercekler.com[edit]

nn website, spam. BBtec 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeleete zee fureeegn lungooege erteecle. --Xrblsnggt 02:30, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IWebsphere Corporation[edit]

nn company, Google7hits. BBtec 02:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And whilst we're on the subject, Fahd_Mairaj_Alvi seems to have the same problems. Yandman 14:04, 29 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. ZsinjTalk 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Broadcasting System, Inc.[edit]

nn company, google 0hits. BBtec 02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If your Google search turned up zero results then it was wrong. Mine turned up pages such as this, this, and this. Uncle G 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, concensus says TV stations are notable by the fact they exist. Nuttah68 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but revise the whole article. Danngarcia 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, registered TV stations are notable. Mukadderat 17:00, 1 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flooz.com[edit]

spam. BBtec 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure how this could be spam, since it's a defunct company. Flooz.com was a competitor to PayPal and all the other online panyment companies in the late 90's when The Internet ws expected to reinvent currency. -- Mikeblas 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and with a number of instances of verifiable independent coverage (for example, see here). Irongargoyle 04:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important part of the history of the dot com bust and has independent coverage. ColourBurst 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to agree with the other nominators. Flooz was right there at the beginning when they were starting to talk about micropayments as a legitimate internet commerce model. It ended up driving a lot of the discussion, as I remember. I think this article could use some attention by an expert in the subject, which I am not. Captainktainer * Talk 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per others, and there certianly is enough published on it such as [7], [8] and [9] found without even trying hard. Certainly passes WP:CORP -- Whpq 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 9 references at wired.com alone. studerby 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Gazpacho 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mikeblas. Spam is an interesting descriptor for a defunct company. RFerreira 06:57, 29 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sroka[edit]

Fails WP:V, no sources for Tom Sroka. Only IMDB link for the movie 1861 was a movie made in 1911. Scottmsg 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7, and tagged as such. Aplomado talk 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is real. I watched his movie at a film festival two weeks ago.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 request made at WP:PNT, if no response in 2 weeks, relist -- Samir धर्म 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foon yew high school, Foon Yew High School[edit]

Nonsense CSD removed twice already, hoping for a speedy here. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:20, 26 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 and redirect to Daiko Group per later discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daitec[edit]

nn companies. BBtec 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article makes little claim of notability, and I couldn't find anything on Google that would help it pas WP:CORP. -- Kicking222 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shameless spam on obscure company --Mecanismo | Talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided, Daitec as a small division may not deserve an article. However, Daiko, the parent company, does not appear to have an article. Daiko is a multinational, multifunctional Japanese company. Nuttah68 20:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Daiko Group, the parent company. There's enough information for a decent section, but not an entire article. Daitec's site says they bring in ¥55 million annually (about $470,145USD as of today), so they really aren't that huge of a company. Not small, either, but not huge. They do appear to be the largest of the subsidiary groups, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NN.-Kmaguir1 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please until article for daiko group can be created the companies are important by wikipedia standard Yuckfoo 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Move to Daiko Group and edit a little to make a stub. Alone it is not notable enough. Mukadderat 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I create the Daiko Group page, and added the info from the Daitec page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mwerge per Nihonjoe. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 00:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daiko Group. Zaxem 05:56, 3 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists[edit]

  • Delete. Not a notable church group at all, No notability asserted. It is regional grouping. Does not seem to pass WP:ORG, which specifically excludes "Individual chapters of national and international organizations". Ohconfucius 02:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Seventh-day Adventists unless article can be expanded by using material from reliable sources. As the only media reference from the South Pacific I could find was an item from the Post-Courier in PNG titled Business Session, that task is not looking promising. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohconfusius.-gadfium 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ORG -- Whpq 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists links to many similar pages with content, so, hopefully, someone could also add to this one.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is no more than a definition of the group. When there is something verified to say about the group it will be time to have an article. GRBerry 04:57, 27 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 WP:CSD#A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Hu[edit]

nn bio. BBtec 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for obvious reasons. If there's any userfying to be done, so be it. SliceNYC 02:27, 26 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 CSD A7. No thanks to vanity press, publishing a book no longer counts as an assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffry R. Palmer[edit]

[Check Google hits] about 500. I would have CSD'd, but he is an author of some fad books or something that may be somehow notable. Nonetheless, looks like a failure of WP:BIO to me. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:57, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamerCast[edit]

spam BBtec 02:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't figure out if this is gamercast.org or gamercast.net, but both of them have no alexa ranking. --Xyzzyplugh 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Like Xyzzy, I'm not sure which site this is an ad for, but the 68 unique G-hits for "GamerCast" don't help the cause of either. -- Kicking222 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. shameless spam on obsure company --Mecanismo | Talk 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above -- Whpq 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 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 under A8 The JPStalk to me 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Hot 100 2005 List[edit]

Non-notable annual magazine list. It's probably a copyvio to reproduce the whole list. PROD tag placed last week was removed without comment. Mikeblas 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we don't need to create lists which are an exact copy of a single issue list from some magazine. -- Whpq 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, copyvio of intellectual property. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A8. Tagged as such.MER-C 10:28, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Williamson[edit]

Non Notable person Cardigan3000 02:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep qualified for the 2005 World Series of Poker (WSOP) in the Gutshot Card Club and went on to finish in 15th place, earning $400,000 and 16,200 ghits [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that's nice and all, but do we need articles for 15th-place finishers in every category of every competition we have an article about? Opabinia regalis 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clearly notable by any measure, more successful than thousands in the same profession. Also, three word nominations are a rude waste of other people's time. 2005 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Ultimus and 2005. The subject of much poker discussion. Essexmutant 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poker being a game with a strong element of luck , one reasonably strong performance, based almost entirely, it would appear on luck does not mean she is more succesful than thousands of players. Hers is as far as i know the only poker entrance in this encyclopedia based on only one performance that didnt involve victory. The precedent here is if she merits an inclusion then clearly every one from this and next years WSOP Main Event 1-15 should be included, which is farcical.Further, those who finished 4th ,6th 7th and 8th in the same competition don't have their own entry.Cardigan3000 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please note that skill is not a requirement for someone to have an article. Whether Williamson is a good player or a bad one should not affect the decision on whether the article exists or not. Furthermore, the TV highlights that showed her in a poor light only represent a fraction of the total hands played, and it would therefore be inaccurate to base her entire playing ability on that appearance, particularly as she has coped admirably in other TV events she has appeared in. Essexmutant 07:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skill may or not be required by to confirm notability, however the only notable thing about her is her performance in a competitive pursuit. There are several sites that explain in detail her poor play, in fact several unfathomably bad plays which may have removed her from the tournament before her relatively unremarkable 15th place. The only other reference to her poker play is a 1st place in a 6 player table of speed poker (heat1, she finished last in the semi final) , which is about as low grade of a victory as you can have, her profit from the tournament was 500 pounds. So there are no TV events according to the Hendon Mob database apart from this. The only thing notable about her is her result in one competition, and that is a 15th place.Cardigan3000 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's be clear here: skill is not required to confirm notability. Essexmutant 09:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See William Hung. She could be the worst player ever, and it wouldn't be relevant here. She did something that got here featured in major print and broadcast media all over the world for an extended period of time. 2005 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Now, let's make this clear: I'm a huge poker fan. We're talking hardcore. We're talking playing in biweekly games and watching it on TV whenever possible. With that said, Williamson is- in my opinion- barely notable enough for WP. As stated above, she came in 15th (and was also the highest finishing woman), but that really doesn't confirm notability. Yes, the competition had 5,619 players, so coming in 15th is amazing, but it's not as if she was top three. So I was going to argue deletion until I thought of the criteria for sportspeople, one of which is playing at the highest professional level of one's sport. Even if it was only for a week, and Williamson never does anything spectacular in poker ever again (which, after watching the WSOP many times, wouldn't shock me), she still played at the absolute highest level of poker. As a result, I've decided that the article is worth keeping, but only by a hair. -- Kicking222 11:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That convinces me. Weak keep as per Kicking222. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batchmates.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and was created by the user Batchmates1, which suggests a vanity page. Crystallina 02:57, 26 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 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Cohen[edit]

Past or present students of Marion Cohen are requested not to state their personal opinions on her teaching abilities. Thank you. Tyrenius 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting: the (previous AfD of 23 August 2006) was closed early with no consensus because the article had been deleted, but it was then recreated (albeit in a shortened form). The original citation by Friday read:

"Vanity page about an academic, full of stuff like "Cohen describes herself as "math prof / mathematician / poet / writer / classical pianist /thrift-shopper / mother / grandmother / scrabbler extraordinaire". Sure, a sucessfull career as an academic, but unless having a job euqals notability, there's not much of substance here. Sometimes I'd speedy stuff like this, but there's already been some talk page discussion so I figure it's best to give this one some discussion in case there's disagreement."

I'm neutral here. Espresso Addict 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment MathStatWoman created the page and left a comment on the talk page using the first person. Seems like a vanity to me. SliceNYC 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete NN bio - original article was deleted because of copyvio, but it looks to me like all the copyvio has been stripped out of this version. Changed to keep based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. It now passes "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" (IMO) Brian 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball Updated Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete blatant vanity for a minor academic/amateur writer/whatever else. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VANITY, WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. Want me to keep going? Daniel.Bryant 08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Daniel, that'll do for me ;) Thε Halo Θ 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yay, I have no more business here :) *runs off to vote on other AfD's* Daniel.Bryant 11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I've seen others assert that "all professors are notable". Is that belief not in play here? Valrith 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's a notable writer. I got the titles and other bibliographic information about her books from the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov/ TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the history shows that the original AfD was never completed and the AfD tag not added to the article. I found it tagged as a speedy copyvio. Part of the article was a copyvio and I deleted based on her being non-notable. After TruthbringerToronto pointed out that she did have some claim to notability I restored the article and removed the copyvio material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as vanity. Article introduces her as academic, and she fails WP:PROF with gusto. Leibniz 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While NN as an academic, she might be notable as an author, given enough independent evidence. I'm neutral now. Leibniz 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you establish why she is notable as a writer? Right now the criteria for that is this:
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
I can see pretty clearly that her books definitely exist, but other than that, I see one possible non-trivial independent review, and no notable awards. The threshold for inclusion isn't that she's just written the books- they need to be notable books too. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my logic above. The subject does not meet criteria proposed in either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and her works do not meet criteria proposed in WP:BOOK. As a professor she has not established herself as particularly outstanding in her field, and as an author she hasn't received any significant acclaim. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nn vanity page per above. Pathlessdesert 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the current version now does meet WP:BIO based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. (Thanks Truthbringer) Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe the article yet evidences multiple independent reviews of the sort that are meant. The MentalHelp.net one is a solid independent review. The Temple University Press one looks like it is - but on closer inspection they are the publisher of the book in question, so the review can't be called independent. Whe WISSP and Greenwood things don't muster up to being reviews in my eyes. 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This person is clearly notable if for no other reason than as an author. Amazon.com is often useful in finding independent reviews (I don't mean reviews by users, it lists "Editorial reviews") see [11] [12] . See also [13] & [14] (these are listed in the external links). Has anyone bothered to search the academic literature? (most of which is not google searchable). Mikker (...) 11:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. While she is obviously a prolific writer, I'm not sure that she's a notable one. The combination of her lterary works outside of her field (mathematics) argues a kind of notability, though. Since she did not create the page, I don't feel it is vanity or intentional self-promotion. --Dennette 13:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I believe she did create the page. Not that it matters now- she's apparently left Wikipedia. --Wafulz 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked into this in detail, but MathStatWoman has been accused of creating more than one supposedly autobiographical page. Not all the accusations can be well founded. Espresso Addict 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plese see Talk:Marion_Cohen ... about half-way down the page, she signs in as Mathwoman (not to be confused with MathStatWoman, author of the page), identifies herself by name, and says, "I had not realized that I was in Wikipedia, and I'm pleased!" I had to look at the discussion pages of both users (and all of the history pages) to figure it out before I made my Weak Keep recommendation. --Dennette 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I haven't looked into this in detail but MathStatWoman has been accused of using a variety of different socks. I don't know whether any of the associations were proven. Espresso Addict 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, run-of-the-mill professor. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Zoe (above) and Pathlessdesert. Hope this is ok to say this time. Benjamin K 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fall on the other side of Dennette's comments, in that while she might be a prolific writer, her work is not particularly notable. (And, as mentioned before, she is not notable as an academic.) 24.126.199.129 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the evidence provided by Mikkerpikker, appears to be notable. RFerreira 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a published author of many books, including reviews are listed on the article page, that meets WP:BIO. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mikkerpikker --Pjacobi 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a notable authoe per Mikkerpikker — Paul August ☎ 04:27, 30 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iehip[edit]

[Check Google hits] almost all hits are ads/sales for the product. I call spamvertising. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I call third-rate "convergence device." Didn't WebTV teach these people anything? Anyway, Delete per nom. --zenohockey 03:22, 26 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 as simple re-creation of content previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ktulu's Kingdom. Uncle G 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ktulu's kingdom[edit]

non-notable Internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB despite the snarky Wikipedia section. Crystallina 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Daniel Case 04:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AbsolutDan really does sum it up very well. Thε Halo Θ 11:00, 26 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.--Andeh 09:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP[edit]

copyvio and Spam. Van Ao 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:34, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Campitelli[edit]

While a very good drummer, he doesn't really have any notability other than playing with Joe Satriani. He also seems to fail WP:Music. Justinmeister 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet WP:MUSIC notability, as a musician (Yes drummers do count), he even has his own IMDB page --RMHED 12:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Backing musicians, whether drummers or not, are rarely notable. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet WP:Music since the only reason he's well known is because of his work with Joe Satriani. To be a notable musician, one has to accomplish more than simply play with someone who's famous. I mean, if he recorded a solo project, or was featured in a reputable magazine of some kind, maybe. As it stands, I don't see how he can be determined notable to warrant his own article. By the way, an IMDB page isn't reason enough to keep his article. Justinmeister 01:32, 27 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; meets WP:CSD.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Bi Lesbian Forum[edit]

Prod removed questionably by anon IP here, so AFDing. Delete per my original prod: non-notable site. 3 ghits. [Check Google hits] (|-- UlTiMuS 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Gay Bi Lesbian Forum article should not be removed. It is a growing site and has a good reputation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • So then which Wikipedia policy do you claim supports it staying here? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says you have the right to remove an article, which is FULLY accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • The hundreds of people who wrote WP:WEB. The concern is notability, not accuracy. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, just because you only recieved 3 hits from google when you searched for our site, you have the right to mark the article for deletion? That is not what the internet is about. You are not being responsible when you mark things for deletion. You didnt even look at the fact that we are a site that is still growing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • If you are a site that is still growing, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP articles are reserved for notable, well established subjects, not growing ones. That's just how it is. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I have read the deletion policies and no where does it say that an article needs to be removed because a user feels it isn't notable. You're biased because our site is for gay, bi, and lesbian people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • It's a factual article, it's not absurd, it's not biased, it's there for anyone that's interested in it. It's not a joke, and it's not in any way misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete because I'm biased against gay, bi and lesbian people. That, of course, could be the only reason. It couldn't be at all because this is a nn site and its proponent is trying to explain to us what our policies should be even though he/she doesn't seem to understand them. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of funny, because I'm not "straight", so theoretically I should support this article as staying, but on WP you have to throw your biases away and it just doesn't meet the notability criteria. I don't think you read them at all if you still think it does, Kshoaf. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, Jesus, another one of these deletion discussions: "I had no idea you actually had rules about what gets kept and what doesn't, and I resent it very much that you actually try to enforce them." Plus the homophobia angle (which is ridiculous, as these people can attest).
    Read WP:WEB. According to Alexa (which does have its limitations as a measure of popularity, we're aware), you're not even in the top 100,000 sites. I know the page says that's not reliable, but let's face it if you were really a high-traffic site you'd probably be here already.
    Now, within the criteria , and considering that Wikipedia already has a few articles on gay websites, can you tell us and show sources to prove that your site is notable? Has it been the subject of media coverage? Is it run by someone notable? Does its content get reproduced elsewhere? Show us. Daniel Case 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Case Amp 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well let me ask you this... why does an article subject have to be popular in order to be listed on Wikipedia? It makes no sense. This is an online encyclopedia, which is supposed to be about ANY and ALL topics... GBL is a topic. Heck, Ive seen much worse on here. So, what is the point of marking it for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • This is an online encyclopedia, which is supposed to be about ANY and ALL topics; You're dead, dead wrong. See WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, no I am not wrong because it says on the logo that it IS an encyclopedia... and where is it?! ONLINE! DUH! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
  • There's really no point to continue this discussion, seriously. Good day. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right and if it is deleted, it will be back... everytime. so, mark for deletion all you want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

  • That's why there is a blocking policy in place. Threatening to vandalize really doesn't go very far here. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia isn't what you were being called wrong about, it was the second half of your statement. BigHaz 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can win this one....though justin's idea IS worth a shot but perhaps the good folk of wikipedia should be more understanding and less rude to people who are simply trying to make an article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

Also regarding the idea of creating the article every time it is deleted won't work because pages can be proetect against recreation if you try that. Its not going to work and if a page was a simple recration it would be speedy deleted much faster than this. Also for a bit of advice accusing people who are deleting an article that viloates Wikipedia rules of being rude will not help you case. --Edgelord 05:53, 26 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. Mostly Rainy 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spies (Coldplay)[edit]

Nothing that's not already on, or can't already be on, the album's page. --zenohockey 03:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, delete or alternatively just redirect. Cedars 04:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redir per Cedars. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 20:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Mikker (...) 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but find a better title. One of the few songs I can see having an article without being a single due to its extra notability of being banned in places like China. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you positive? I found this quote:
"We've been banned in China because of the song Spies."
But it only gets two Google results, which for such a presumably inflammatory quote seems low. I'm also not getting any results on the Infotrac Expanded Academic database. --zenohockey 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More: Music Week, Dec. 17, 2005, pp. 6-7, has a reference to pirated Coldplay CDs being sold "openly" in China, though the article says it was "clearly aimed at tourists." --zenohockey 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, in terms of what's considered "reliable" for here, no, I'm not sure. In terms of what's up, I'm about 98% positive at this point. I don't expect "banned in China" to sway many people, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vexual[edit]

protologism. Only Ghits appear to be some music CD and misspellings of "sexual": [16] --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:31, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stillwood camp[edit]

NN bible camp. Daniel Case 03:42, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaidMarian[edit]

nn MMORPG, no sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not properly formatted for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but remember that sloppy formatting isn't a reason for deletion. Daniel Case 04:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Zoe. Thε Halo Θ 10:49, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zannettis[edit]

A novelist who isn't yet published, and whose "memoirs" are his only work. The article doesn't mention how long this 26 year old's memoirs are. Vanity? – ClockworkSoul 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral What if his work is published?--Edtalk c E 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete What was I thinking??? I totally forgot about crystal ball!!! (bangs his head on the desk)--Edtalk c E 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't know if he's going to publish (neither does Google), or in what format. Pamphlet? Free download from his own website? If he publishes, perhaps we can re-examine, until then he hasn't actually done anything. – ClockworkSoul 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, author fails WP:BIO as his book hasn't even been published. WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:CHILL applies. --Kinu t/c 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If his book is being published by a reputable publishing house, it's not showing up in any of the usual places, including the Publishers Weekly database. --Pagana 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed with above. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Thε Halo Θ 10:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable as yet. -- Necrothesp 14:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 20:44, 26 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 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security theater[edit]

Neologism, not notable, conspiracy-cruft Edogy 03:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. As non-notable neologism. Cedars 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per ghit count: [Check Google hits]. Plenty of content here, and it seems the term is in use. May be rooted in conspiracy theories, but that's not a reason to delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable expression. Gained milage beyond Mr Schneier. I've even used it in conversation over lunch. --Billpg 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable due to broad dispersal in the blog world and references in the press [17] [18] [19] -- not always by or in connection with Schneier. [20] [21] Note especially Tucker Carlson using it recently on his show. [22] Nothing in particular to do with conspiracy theories, either. (The current article is largely OR, though.) —Celithemis 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V, WP:OR. Looks like neologism to me... Valrith 12:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given above. The OR issues should be able to be dealt with short of deleting the page. This term seems well established in the discourse of security professionals and the general public. As an aside, dismissing well-thought criticism of security rules from experts in the field as "conspiracy-cruft" does a shameful disservice to the public discourse. wac(talk contrib) 16:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been used notably beyond its creator. There may be WP:V and WP:OR at work, but it's fixable. SliceNYC 17:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this term all the time in the blogosphere. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above Spearhead 21:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it's an intresting concept we should be aware of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.237.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep per Celithemis' comment --Mperry 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also see this term regularly Alanhwiki 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A term is not non-notable simply because it is new. The term "security theater" has seen rapid acceptance by the security community since its inception by Bruce Schneier, and is a convenient and concise way to explain an increasingly important concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenFalken (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Labelling this as having anything to do with "conspiracy theories" in an attempt to weaken it is foolish. The rapid take-up of the term suggests it is a helpful tool to have when discussing security matters. Rufous 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a computer security professional, I find the term decidedly useful. --Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.48.118 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 August 2006
  • Keep Information is both not original research and is verifiable by the references give. The term "Security Theater" may often be used in biased articles but the entry given here is neutral. 17:00, 28 August (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis and wac. --Aristotle 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Perfect term. Who ever put this article up for deletion should be required to show their ID everywhere and be subject to search - just for their protection! Dhanks 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable (Bruce Schneier is an acclaimed authority on security), appropriate, good article. PizzaMargherita 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a useful entry. Polymorp 11:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article provides an unambiguous definition of a commonly used phrase. gawp 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This concept is increasingly widely cited in the media. Example: Village Voice article on NYC nightclub security. [23] 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a rather new term, but it's already widely used - the quick inclusion of new phenomena is actually an advantage of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.57.29 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 August 2006
  • Strong keep Wide media citation, common neutral usage in professional security community. 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agunn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 August 2006
  • Delete Neologism, cirucular definition, useless garbage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.103.116 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingwood Underground[edit]

NN local forum (doesn't even tell us where Kingwood is). Daniel Case 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Kingwood Texas is about 15 miles north of Houston on Highway 59— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.151.70 (talk • contribs) [reply]

OK, but the forum fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per CSD A7. Club with no notability asserted. Irongargoyle 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, no evidence at all that this site meets WP:WEB. Alexa rank: 423,183. --Kinu t/c 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless author gives justification on how it survives notability. No speedy criteria available. ColourBurst 13:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local and non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:21, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bregans[edit]

Minor fictional character in Cambridge Latin Course series, not notable enough to warrant own article. A mention in the Cambridge Latin Course article seems sufficient. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are too many fictional characters hanging round here already, without adding ones from Latin textbooks. Espresso Addict 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Joan-of-arc 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember this guy. No way in hell he needs his own article. Opabinia regalis 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I have to observe that it's too bad he's not a character in a videogame, manga or SF series, 'cause then he'd be guarenteed his own WP page. Hell, the clothes he wears would get their own WP page. --Pagana 06:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is a simple reflection of the sources available in these cases. People in the world at large simply don't write about Bregans. Whereas they write reams and reams about Pokémon characters. If you think that this is unbalanced, then campaign for people in the world at large to stop writing about Pokémon characters and start writing about Latin textbook characters. Persuade the world to make more source material on the latter. Wikipedia is not the tool for fixing any perceived disproportionate skews of the corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia reflects human knowledge. It doesn't create it. Uncle G 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I loved the Cambridge series. He still isn't important enough to warrant his own article; he barely deserves a mention. Captainktainer * Talk 18:16, 26 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Baron[edit]

Might be something notable in there or coming, but looks so far like vanispamcruftisement that fails WP:BIO. Daniel Case 04:13, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging for Max[edit]

nn blog, no claims for notability are made, no sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per Zoe. --andrew 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a link on the article page. The existence of the link does not prove notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being associated with a political campaign does not make a blog notable. Daniel Case 04:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete a number of their stories and actions have become a part of the campaign. [25] [26] - LowRoller 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those are rather trivial coverage in articles or roundups devoted to campaign news. The story is the campaign, not the blog. Daniel Case 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both cases it did turn out to impact the race. - LowRoller 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the proof for that? Polls and articles discussing them, please. Daniel Case 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting WP:WEB, the relevant standard. GRBerry 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Wikipedia needs to go in the direction of having pages about all of these political blogs: they are an important new phenomenon and very frequently generate news. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Consider that many of these, particularly this one, are related to campaigns. A few weeks after November they will effectively be dead. In a year they will no longer be encyclopedic, particularly if the candidate loses. Any news generated by the blog can thus effectively be dealt with in the article about the official supported. We considered that sort of thing when WP:WEB was created. Blogs need to be lasting to be notable. The Daily Kos is perhaps the acme of a notable political blog. This is a long way from that.
As for their novelty, consider that in a few years they will be standard, perhaps meriting their own section in articles about political campaigning and such and an external link but not a separate article, IMO, no more than the individual classrooms in a school building would. Daniel Case 01:44, 27 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, I'm calling it A1 -- Samir धर्म 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAyoh[edit]

Prod removed by author, as expected. Neologism therefore delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:21, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew John[edit]

notability not asserted, vanity, source not germane, poss hoax delete per above Joan-of-arc 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete it, he was very notable. I only created this after I saw many, many wrestling fans approach him for an autograph and pictures this evening. If that isn't notable I do not know what is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdWood (talk • contribs) .
  • Then you're doing original research, which is unacceptable. See WP:NOR. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is in fact not true, after seeing this I spoke to people and found all these things to be true online. I have included links to support the statement in the article. Which is acceptable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdWood (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, hoax or not, there is no verifiability from reliable sources that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers A large fan base, fan listing or '"cult" following' Seems to meet it to me. --EdWood 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)EdWood--EdWood 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If Nobodies like Christine Dolce can have a wiki, why can't Matthew John? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.117.41 (talk • contribs) .

"Nobody" is a matter of opinion here. Find, and put in the article, sources to demonstrate that Mr. John has achieved similar notability. Daniel Case 01:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the actual incident which garnered him a following, listed as teh lacey incident. --EdWood 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope you all don't mind this is my first entry since my additions to Johnny Maestro got removed and this time I am really gonna try to fight for it. Maybe it can be merged with The Ring Of Honor Wiki or the female wrestler Lacey if she has an entry. I shall check.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Luciani[edit]

No relevant Ghits. Notability seems to be asserted, but likely a hoax. Daniel Case 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw him perform at the Gypsy tea room in dallas. Hes only 13 and can drop some mad beats! No kidding.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2pacisthabest (talk • contribs) .

But is he notable by WP:MUSIC? Daniel Case 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. 2pacisthabest went and vandalized my user page over the course of six edits.(here's one. Upgrading my vote to speedy delete as a result. Daniel Case 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I dont see how it asserts notibility, it says hes underground --Musaabdulrashid 04:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and teach the article's creator some manners. ---Charles 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7, simply saying "I'm a rapper, I have some songs, I perform here" without any qualification is not an assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 04:58, 26 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 textbook CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pensionstate[edit]

WP:MUSIC not met TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:30, 26 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 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surch[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Not that Alexa is an accurate reflection of notability, but since the article mentions it, the site only ranks 73,378 currently [27]. Poking around the web, I found posts like this: [28], indicating that the site is brand new, and "still in testing" (in addition to the article itself which indicates a beta release in July). Other Ghits: [29]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V, and from the link the nom gave, there's a fair amount of crystal balling too. Additionally, there is only one external link to the site. --Wafulz 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The page has been completely changed and the issues that you have talked about are taken out. But im going to disagree. Alexa is a widely used tool on the net and a creditable reference. There are many pages on wikipedia that list alexa. in addition you are referring to googles backlinks but not taking into account that they update on a whim when they want and how they want.... pagerank has not updated in almost 4 months so that is a completely unfair bias. Did you check msn or yahoo? Surch's traffic is far beyond most sites so the suggestion that it’s unknown is simply not true. I understand the issues with the first article but they have been changed.

    In addition, surch's alexa rating of 73K is a 3 MONTH average... todays total was 32K and our page views per user was higher than googles. So while we are new and our userbase is not that of the big3 it is growing and our users are consistent.

    I hope this helps. --Surch 08:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Our articles are based upon secondary sources. If there is no non-trivial source material on a company, produced by people other than the company, we cannot have an article. If you wish to make a case for keeping the article please cite such sources. Uncle G 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I also disagree, this surch engine is a great surch engine and I have been thinking about submitting it onto wikipedia myself for some time now and I'm glad to see that someone actually has finally! The surch results are great and far exceed Google, Yahoo, and MSN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.97.225 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising the great new web sites that editors have just discovered. It is an encyclopaedia. If you wish to inform the world about a web site, write an article and have it published in a reputable computer magazine. Uncle G 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN article, WP:NOT crystal ball. Tokakeke 08:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that a crystal ball? your suggestions are without merit. Everything in there now is non-ad based and accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surch (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with AbsolutDan. Right now, this fails WP:WEB as non notable. If it does continue to grow, as the article predicts, recreate. Until then, delete. Thε Halo Θ 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 12:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears to be about the company behind the website and they, in no way, meet WP:CORP. Nuttah68 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Though the article does look somewhat better than it did when I first nominated it, it's still lacking sources. While I can appreciate that Surch might be a useful tool, unless there are reliable sources out there that review the site, or something else that makes the article meet WP:WEB/WP:CORP, the article cannot be included at this time. Additionally, I believe the editors above that refer to crystal-balling mean that a lot of the reasoning for inclusion of the article is based not on what the website/company has accomplished, but what it expects to -- in other words, that Surch isn't yet well-known, but will be. Let me state that although I still feel the article should be deleted at this time, I have no prejudice against recreation in the future if Surch turns out to be wildly successful and then meets criteria for inclusion (and I wish Surch well in this respect). --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I understand but there are hundreds of thousands of sites listed on wikipedia that have nowhere near the audience that surch has. In fact our Alexa rating today was 18K... Again, 8.9 page views per user. Alexa IMO is creditable enough. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=surch.com&url=surch.com Please check todays totals then look at page views per user. Surch has not made in that page any reference to what it expects to do rather what it IS doing. I would suggest a site that gets well over a million uniques a day to be VERY well known. You make suggestion to "wildly successful" show me any site that is other than fortune 500's and then why dont you delete all the rest..that would leave wikipedia with say maybe a few thousand sites. --Surch 21:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "I understand but there are hundreds of thousands of sites listed on wikipedia that have nowhere near the audience that surch has.": Then nominate them for deletion. "Alexa IMO is creditable enough. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=surch.com&url=surch.com" - It's not. Google, with terms "surch search engine" displays your site, and some review on 5 Star Affiliate marketing program. "You make suggestion to "wildly successful" show me any site that is other than fortune 500's and then why dont you delete all the rest..that would leave wikipedia with say maybe a few thousand sites." - Something Awful, FARK, Slashdot, Neopets, the list goes on and on. The page was created with the purpose of advertising. If and when the site is notable, put it back, add some sources, and maybe we'll go from there. Wooty 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough. I suppose you are, to a point, correct. I will repost when surch meets the standards of Wikipedia. Although Wooty, its funny that you only reference google. I think someone once said... "We are all nothing but a flock of sheep, a button collar starched and bleached." In addition...Who was it, the macintosh boys that were turned down for VC by some no-name banker? Hrm. Funny that. I suppose at this point I will ask that surch be deleted.
Comment There are problems with Google, sure, but at the moment it's the best way to determine notability, unless you've got a bunch of links from notable websites handy. I appreciate your understanding, and I wish your project well. Regards, Wooty 06:21, 27 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 Deville (Talk) 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPREAD Distribution[edit]

Blatant spam of a non-notable company. MER-C 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:SPAM unless speedily cleaned up and sourced to comply with WP:CORP and WP:V. A cursory Google search finds very little of relevance. --Kinu t/c 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete .Mukadderat 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:53, 3 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casio Kingdom[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable website that makes no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. Successfully prodded, but re-created. Does not qualify for CSD G4. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Leuko 05:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that this site meets WP:WEB. Article also appears to have been created by an author whose username is the same as that of the creator of the site, which makes it WP:VANITY as well. --Kinu t/c 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Casio Kingdom hosts all of my games/programs which I personally created. It's also listed on Casio Education Australia. It's part of the history of calculator gaming.Seantan 05:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)-- article's creator Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a note at our notability guidelines for websites which discuss which websites are notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Has this website been given previous coverage by reliable sources, e.g. widely published newspaper or magazine? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it hasn't been, but I thought being on a Casio Education website would give it some credit. Also, regarding the Vanity claim, my article is purely informative. It doesn't give any praise to my site at all.Seantan 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You made an article with the aim of giving your site publicity - which is the intent of a vanity article. We'd prefer website owners not to write about their own sites at all. If it's that interesting, someone else will write an article about it. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nuttah68 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Jap9c 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mitaphane talk 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seantan, I think your efforts would be better spent improving the article for the Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS rather than self promotion. For example, a section on programming could be added(this is obviously something you know about), or the addition of your website link in Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS's external links section. The TI-89 has a small community around programming for the calculator, the same seems to be the case for the CFX-9850. Mitaphane talk 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks Mitaphane. I will do so. I would still like to keep my article though 202.89.180.222 04:51, 27 August ~~2006 (UTC)
Comment: Your article? Please see WP:OWN Leuko 05:56, 27 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 as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 09:57Z

Zanity[edit]

Pure POV spam/link spam. Leuko 06:00, 26 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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Broun[edit]

Is the mother of a poet, but I don't think that makes her notable herself per WP:BIO. Written by editor who appears to have the same last name, so probably WP:VAIN too. Leuko 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and allow to develop. the parents of burns have some interesting ties with Lord Monboddo and robert burns visited (and wooed) monboddo's daughter at Monboddo House. there are data regarding interactions of robert burns parents with monboddo. Anlace 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep What makes Agnes Broun notable is the enormity of Burns' place in Scottish culture. She's not just the mother of any old poet. Burns is the poet of a nation. Agnes Broun may not be on the level of John Shakespeare, but from a reseacher's and literary scholar's point of view, her story is a valuable side-note, a fact confirmed by the archival interest in her life. For the record, I am not related to Agnes Broun. Finally, because of Burns' demi-god status, Agnes Broun has become a folk figure.--Wbroun 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as it currently stands to her son's page. If there's enough information to warrant a separate article, spin it out after it's been written there. If all she is is a side-note (valuable or not), then she'd do better as a side-note on her son's page. BigHaz 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(following the expansion) Weak merge to her son's page. There's more information about her, which is a great thing to see, but I'm still not totally convinced that she's notable for any reason than the fact of her son's fame. The fact that more information has been added, though, weakens my original leaning. BigHaz 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep what wbroun said is true. Agnes Broun is important to any resaercher or scholar who wants to learn more about Burns. I think she passes WP:BIO as notable. Thε Halo Θ 10:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part/s of WP:BIO? BigHaz 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two, that I can see, maybe another, though I'd have to research.
  • 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
  • 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?
And
  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
I'm sure that there are some academic papers out there, though, as I said, I'd have to look. Thε Halo Θ 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She may get through on the last one, but I just have a feeling that the majority of people out there who'll be after information on her would be happy with a paragraph or two in her son's article. As it's currently written (and I'll accept it as a work in progress) the only thing anyone could gain from reading the article is that she was Robbie's mother and outlived him - the second point of which is mildly interesting in itself. BigHaz 10:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "paragraph or two" on the main Burns article would be digressive and, frankly, disruptive of the narrative of the poet's life. As far as the article not appealing to a majority of info-gatherers, I stand guilty as charged. The piece, which is well-supported, is aimed at Burns scholars and serious enthusiasts, those who wish to "dig deeper" than the standard Burns-o-pedia entry. --Wbroun 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything wrong with adding a section to the bottom of Burns' own article entitled "family" and writing that he was descended from the Brouns and that his mother Agnes [insert rest of article here]? BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article stands it offers no more than a genealogical connection. Nuttah68 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Robert Burns because this article is very short. I agree that this content belongs on Wikipedia due to Burns' importance but not as an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability has been established above, and I'm sure there's much more to be written. Having a short article is not a reason to delete. SliceNYC 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Note I have now expanded this article as planned. I intend to add more, as time permits, for the edification and interest of scholars of Burns and Scottish folklore.--Wbroun 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Google scholar search for "Agnes Broun" as a phrase finds no academic papers, and four bools: two on Robert Burns, one Register of Wills and Inventories, and one on Early Modern Witches. I'm not certain if the last two are about her, but clearly any notability is from being Robert's mom, not independent. GRBerry 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot be too surprised not to find any academic paper on Agnes Broun, esp. of those listed on Google scholar search. She will always be a minor figure of literary history and folklore, not the sort of person on which academic careers are built. Still, those academics and lay-scholars wanting to learn more about Burns will find joy and interest in learning more about his mother. If not on Wiki, where else? It's a little hard to grasp why one would want to suppress such information, tho I am totally new to Wiki, so I probably am misunderstanding some aspect of protocol.--Wbroun 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best place to put information on her is into an article on her son at the moment. There are other examples of historical figures with peripherally interesting family members having their biographies expanded with information on the family member. That way the information itself remains "unsuppressed". BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. Some of the info would certainly work in Robbie's article, but much of it just doesn't fit. There is a great spectrum of notability, and Agnes is on the lighter side, but Burns' scholars and enthustiasts will take interest nonetheless in these small gems. Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself and wear out my welcome -- I think I've said all I can in this debate. I appreciate people's interest in Burns and his family.--Wbroun 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Notability is not a formal policy, and the concept of notability is always contentious. A fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without original research. Am comfortable that this meets the criterion. That the article's author may be related does not invalidate the material; it only invites closer scrutiny. Williamborg (Bill) 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears that the subject is notable, per the monument in her name and per Mark Twain's referenc eto her. Per WP:N, "Notability cannot be measured for some historical and international topics". Remembering that schooling in those days is somewhat different to today, Broun, as the primary influence on Robbie Burns, could arguably passes WP:BIO, WP:PROF, IMHO. Ohconfucius 05:48, 29 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripper: A Heavy Metal Odyssey[edit]

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. Author removed CSD A7 after inserting unsourced claims of a large following at a couple of local colleges. Leuko 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, and that the only link provided is to a Myspace page doesn't do much for WP:RS either. --Kinu t/c 06:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - the author can't do that. I've put it back. MER-C 09:06, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches of Elswick[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The only real assertion of notability is on the talk page: that they were 'featured' on BBC Radio 4's Women's Hour. Albums are listed on Amazon, but as limited availbaility, and I'm fairly sure it isn't a major label. Delete The JPStalk to me 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article lists two references for non-trivial articles about them from the BBC. -- Whpq 19:30, 22 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the 'cares for fluffy bunnies in their spare time' parts of the article. Nuttah68 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:33, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social-technical systems[edit]

Original research, unless sources are forthcoming (as per User:130.123.225.69). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was the user who proposed deletion. 130.123.225.69 appears to be the original author. Gazpacho 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I immediately found several academic papers published on this by doing a Google search, so it appears that it is notable and there is material to do a solid, verifiable article. JChap T/E 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While a Google search will yield instance of this phrase, it's unclear whether it merit's it's own article (especially in the current muddled state). OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's meaningless jargon in its current state. If it's turned into an article I'll reconsider. Dlyons493 Talk 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We must AGF. If we found the citations, we should put it up. Although the paragraph is complete jibberish, we could always just blank it and start from scratch.--Edtalk c E 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per JChap. It just needs a rewrite. Lauren 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing the basic WP:V, unsourced and undocumented. I agree the phrase exists and that the article needs a rewrite, and I have no problem with either. However, unless one of the keep noms are volunteering to bring the article up to snuff, I'd see this one gone and have it recreated later, hopefully in a better way. I'll also raise notability as an issue, since the phrase gets only 257 distinct Ghits. Tychocat 08:16, 21 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:23, 21 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:49, 26 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Lightning[edit]

Nonnotable website; 381 unique Ghits for "Silent lightning", most unrelated to the site; Alexa rating below 4.6 million. NawlinWiki 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Site is a growing community hub with traffic that is not simply personal site related. Alexa traffic shows this as true. People who visit this page also visit:Subvector (subvector.com - Site info); Start4all clan.start4all.com - Site info; Rogue Forum www.counter-strike.org.uk/forum/upload - Site info; Ohio Gaming www.columbusgaming.com - Site info; Clantoolz www.clantoolz.com - Site info; AssimX Network; www.assimx.net - Site info; Artemis Project Gaming www.apgaming.com - Site info; Amped Gaming News www.ampednews.com - Site info; Actiongames.co.uk www.actiongames.co.uk - Site info; MyLeague.com; myleague.com - Site info; GameAdmins gameadmins.com - Site info; Battle Eagle Elite Forces; www.b33f.com - Site info; Gamers Modem forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=gamersmodem%2... - Site info; Desert Combat eSports dc-esports.com - Site info; Cyber X Games cyberxgaming.com - Site info; Cybercade cybercade.com - Site info; Crasiworld crasiworld.com - Site info; Ultimate Gamers www.ultimategamers.com - Site info; Tactical Gamer www.tacticalgamer.com - Site info; ServerSpy www.serverspy.net - Site info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choyt (talk • contribs) (article creator)
    • Response I don't understand why a list of other sites visited by people who visit SilentLightning would make that site any more notable. NawlinWiki 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to demonstrate that this web site warrants an article, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article offers no history, assertion of notability, or ability to pass WP:WEB. --Wafulz 17:04, 21 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN. Wooty 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:01, 26 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 as moved to appropriate mainspace name and userfied -- Samir धर्म 08:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarcLevoy/Light field[edit]

Why is this called MarcLevoy/Light field? The creator being named MarcLevoy is a pretty good idea why. Recommend deletion and moving information to Light field Lid 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first Wiki page I've ever written, so I created it as a subpage on my user page. After screwing up my courage, I moved it to Light field. Feel free to edit. User:MarcLevoy

Ah now I understand how it happened - your user page is User:MarcLevoy, not MarcLevoy. --- Lid 08:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved MarcLevoy/Light field to User:MarcLevoy/Light field. The redirect still needs deletion. --- Lid 08:14, 26 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 redirect to Rake (poker). There's no need to have a 5-day discussion over someone's attempts at disruption. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rake Free[edit]

Uncategorized article created following the removal of a redirect. [30] It has since been used for spam purposes, with one user continuously spamming web links into the article and ignoring 3RR. The relevant information already appears in the Rake (poker) article. Delete. Essexmutant 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Keep. Rake free poker is increasingly popular in online gaming. --Yakuman[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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Card Crusade[edit]

Delete as spam with no declaration of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Essexmutant 07:37, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Bailey[edit]

There's nothing in this article to suggest that the person is notable outside Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "article does not hurt encyclopedia" is not a valid argument - there are notability guidelines for a reason. Wooty 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. There will be people who will argue she's notable simply for being on the show, but I'm not among them... Valrith 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not another reality show contestant! -- Necrothesp 14:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, winners of Big Brother struggle to be notable, losers even more so. Nuttah68 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty easily, based on involvement on a hit nationally broadcast show, seen by millions, with substantial interest in each partiicpant. Nominator's logic presumes flawed conclusion. She's notable for her involvement in a huge hit show. We don't delete famous athletes for lack of non-athletic coverage, actors for lack of non-acting coverage, or politicians for lack of non-political activity. --Rob 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Monica Bailey is a well known personality. She is notable enough to be covered on wikipedia.

Unitedroad 12:11, 30 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSS Prefects[edit]

Incomplete nomination for a page which was speedy deleted back in May 06. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSS Prefects. Not notable group of school prefects, and no notability asserted. I cannot see prevous version to know if this is the same version deleted (ie don't know if speedy applies). Propose that the page be deleted and protected from re-creation. Ohconfucius 07:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:03, 26 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibis Del Mar Nieves[edit]

Proposed deletion of this 22 year old reality show wannabe actress, with no other achievemnts to note. Ohconfucius 08:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:02, 26 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 CSD G7 requested by author. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books with titles that are not constituents[edit]

List criteria is bizarre and pretty much useless. Could also be impossible to keep correctly updated. Lid 08:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, User:Ashley Y, has proposed its deletion making this redundant. --- Lid 08:34, 26 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 A8 copyvio < 48 h -- Samir धर्म 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Productions[edit]

[Check Google hits] maybe 15 applicable hits, all of which are either a variant of the official site, or myspace/geocities. Impossible to WP:V with WP:RS, fails WP:CORP as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also note that half of the article is pasted from the official site. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't that make this a copyvio and eligible for speedy under db-copyvio? Valrith 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Speedy delete A8, tagged. ColourBurst 19:03, 26 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. - Bobet 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulfkeitel Couplande[edit]

I think this is a hoax. It was added by a user with essentially no other contributions. I can't find any hits on Google or Google Books that are not derived from Wikipedia. The source cited are 12 volumes of a book from 1892. I know a fair amount about Anglo-Scandinavian history of the period and I think I would have heard about someone who saved Canute's life twice. There was an Ulfcytel who fought at the Battle of Ashingdon - but he was on Edmund's side and he was killed in the battle. Haukur 08:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - difficult one as I suspect you may be right in that he didn't exist. Nevertheless, it may be that there is some myth that has been reported as fact in the Yorkshire Inquisitions. Should we just delete because we personally can't check the records? I've come down for delete on the basis that there aren't multiple sources, and the source cited can't be a primary source as it isn't contemporaneous. If it is deleted there are references in Coupland, Northumberland and Copeland, Cumbria that should be removed too. Yomanganitalk 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it could conceivably be a legend reported as fact rather than an outright hoax. Let's see if we can get more knowledgeable people in here. Haukur 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm no expert but reading the articles, Ulfkeitel Couplande saved Cnut's life in 1015 and as a reward was granted land in Cumbria. The trouble I see here is that it is widely accepted that Cumbria was Scottish until 1032. Nuttah68 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the major problems with this is that the transliteration of Nordic names varies a lot, and as such, it could just be an unusual transliteration.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Ulfkeitel is presumably intended as a version of Ulfkell/Úlfkell/Ulfketill/Úlfketill/Ulfcytel/Ulfcetel etc. though it isn't one I've seen before. Couplande is more difficult; it would presumably be an Anglicization of something like *Kaupland though I'm not familiar with that as a byname. Thus we might have something like "Ulfkell af Kauplandi" but that doesn't help me at all in finding anything about this purported person. Haukur 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I tried a few variations earlier in the week without luck. I can't find any reference to "Ulf of Yorkshire" in the Domesday Book as claimed in the article either.
  • Delete The problem with verifiability. Even if is, there is no reasonable notability of the person. Mukadderat 17:22, 1 September 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izteraab[edit]

Originally up for speedy delete but speedy tag removed by new user whose single purpose was to seemingly remove the speedy tag and to claim the band was notable[31]. Falls under possible WP:Vanity and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lid 08:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--excellent point about: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have removed the two phrases (one in "intro", one in "near future"] that would entertain this complaint— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchohan (talk • contribs)

  • edit conflict Delete - no indication that they meet WP:BAND that I can see. BigHaz 09:09, 26 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 in the spirit of CSD G3 - sneaky vandalism. The claim that Sumner Redstone has three children blatantly contradicts reliable sources such as [32], and there is absolutely no sign of "Redstone Investments Corporation" on the web, much less coverage on its status as a majority stakeholder in Yahoo!. If we allow this article to live its full five days on AfD, it'll be an unnecessary affront to Sumner himself and a dishonesty to our readers. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner Redstone Jr.[edit]

Biography about a non-existent person. Someone with all the accomplishments that this person would have achieved, should have many mentions on the web, this isn't the case.-- JoanneB 08:49, 26 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 the perfect CSD A7 example. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Patrick Cleveland[edit]

Perhaps this is the perfect stub - its certainly short. However, I can't establish notability and it is a likely autobiography. -- Solipsist 08:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A1, A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Subject may exist (or may just have a common name), but no notability. BigHaz 09:05, 26 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 as A7 The JPStalk to me 11:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien penel[edit]

Claims to be notorious but name brings up a whole 2 google entries. Assertion of notability is brought into significant question due to this. Lid 09:16, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Oklak[edit]

Notability questioned; contested speedy. No vote. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 09:49Z

  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Leibniz 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being CEO of a company that is not notable enough to have its own article sums it up. Nuttah68 21:05, 26 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 all CSD G4/A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Tajvidi[edit]

Also up for deletion are the derivative pages:

Violates WP:Vanity, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is also non-notable Lid 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out the page is reposted content already deleted, changing recommendation to speedy delete all. --- Lid 10:09, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caramellounge[edit]

There's an assertion of notability in that it's growing rapidly, but it doesn't seem particularly notable to me BigHaz 10:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that it had been prodded for failing WP:WEB in an earlier version. This was removed and most of what I'm calling the assertion of notability was added. BigHaz 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 127,039 --Xyzzyplugh 16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable at the moment. Come back if the crystal ball visions happen. Nuttah68 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above + self-promotion. IceCreamAntisocial 02:05, 27 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 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-South Africa relations[edit]

This an unnecessary page created by User:Deuterium due to his edits on the Foreign relations of Israel page being reverted. And for good reason. Along with Israeli Apartheid articles, it just another attempt to place anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia Evolver of Borg 11:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, of course. The material is factual, balanced and extremely well sourced by Wikipedia standards. The fact that Evolver of Borg sees it as "anti-Israel propaganda" and wants it deleted speaks volumes of his own attitudes and standards. Deuterium 11:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Foreign relations of Israel. While I agree it is well-referenced and it is not blatantly POV pushing, it also looks to be an exercise in WP:POINT due to reversions of Deuterium's changes in the Foreign relations of Israel page. I'd strongly disagree with Evolver of Borg's reasoning after the first sentence though: although some of the revisions made by Deuterium were unnecessary and not NPOV, a number of them provided clarity and references to the article and actively removed POV. Yomanganitalk 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I didn't make this article because I was being reverted on Foreign Relations of Israel, but because the South Africa entry on that page had grown much larger than the entries for other countries, even the Soviet Union! Even Venezuela gets a Israel-Venezuela relations page, so I don't see this page's existence as being inappropriate. Deuterium 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep - I apologise if I unfairly characterized your actions. I took a good look at the article and the South Africa section of Foreign relations of Israel and its history, but didn't check the comparative sizes of the rest of Foreign relations of Israel. Considering almost every other country has their own page, there's no reason why this shouldn't be split off as well (though obviously the South Africa section on the main article needs cutting back in that case). I suggest any objections of bias be addressed in on the article's talk page. Yomanganitalk 12:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for the support. I agree that the South Africa section in Foreign relations of Israel does need cutting back in size, I'm just cautious about doing so due to the inevitable POV accusations in summarizing a great deal of facts in a few paragraphs. Deuterium 12:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: economical relations are absent, as well as the information on pre-1970. Pavel Vozenilek 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a quite well written article that would be useful to users of Wikipedia. It covers major events, and documents serious episodes in history. If Deuterium's edits have been unneccesarily reverted on other pages, maybe that speaks to a clear Pro-Israeli bias by other contributors. Given the size of the material, this clearly warrants its own article. Evolver of Borg has unnecceasrily asked for deletion here. Please be careful with these in the future. Nlsanand 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an obvious pov fork created by a user who was unable to introduce inappropriate material on another article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what is supposedly POV about this rigorously sourced article? Deuterium 04:21, 27 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 by GIen. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protean knights[edit]

Was speedied, now returned to life. Basically WoWcruft BigHaz 11:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity page for NN internet group. 22 unique google hits [34]. --IslaySolomon 11:25, 26 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 Merged and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naito Kiyonaga[edit]

Maybe this is just Wikipedia's cultural bias at work, but this guy really doesn't seem notable. He doesn't have an article on ja: and he gets barely 60 Ghits, many of which are wikimirrors. But I might be totally wrong, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Soo 11:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Naito clan, which is enough. ColourBurst 13:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. If anyone wants to redirect after the deletion, feel free. MER-C 15:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how does this fall under A7? A7 requires no assertion of notability, and defending in a historical battle seems to count to me. There's a difference between assertion and verification, but that's not what A7 was meant to address. ColourBurst 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely millions of people have appeared in a historical battle? They aren't individually notable. Soo 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nonetheless, A7 was meant to address obvious lack of assertion of notability - I don't think it's obvious at all, which is why I removed it. All the google hits I find mention him in relation to other notable members of the Naito clan, which is why I recommended merge and redirect. ColourBurst 21:30, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed (company)[edit]

Non-notable corporation, fails to satisfy WP:CORP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Yup, looks pretty non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Non-profit charity company and actually quite a big player in Finland. Regards: Chairman of the Gospelboarders -Christian snowboarders association in Finland- (www.gospelboarders.com)
  • Do not delete. Non-profit charity company, is currently a subject of multiple published works in Finnish Christian newspapers. jukkabrother 08:07, 30 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Country Folk[edit]

Original research, unverified, and unencyclopedic and full of stereotyping. I've just moved from the big smoke to an Australian rural area and I've yet to hear one "Crikey", "Blimey", "Fair Dinkum'" or "True Blue" on the street. Possibly already covered in the article on Culture of Australia. -- Longhair 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite funny really. As an Australian, I don't take offense to it. Rather, it's full of stereotypes that are just as easily found in Sydney city, as out in the bush. That, and it's not a nessecary, productive or useful article that should be found on wikipedia. Nebuchanezzar 12:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I didn't take any offence either, and you're right, I've heard just as many 'bush terms' back in the city. -- Longhair 12:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Necrothesp. JPD (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crikey, there's a lot of original research and unverified claims in this article. Fair dinkum, delete. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not fair dinkum. --Bduke 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strewth, is bluey fair dinkum? delete. **Or at least move to Australian country folk ;) Garrie 01:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: See User Talk:Sclis#Box Wine for what I just removed from the Box Wine article.Garrie 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bizarre. --Scott Davis Talk 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on rural or regional Ausrtalia would probably be quite good, but this isn't it, or even the beginning of it. Off Topic comment: In Australia, it seems if you live in a city of less than a million people you are in "rural Australia". -- Chuq 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. --Roisterer 03:38, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interlink SA[edit]

proposed deletion due to apparent lack of assertion notability, and absence of notabilityOhconfucius 12:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 14:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom unless a verifiable claim of notability is made. Irongargoyle 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As fair as I can tell, its a course offered by the South Australian TAFE system. As such, it might be worth a mention on the TAFE page but not as a stand alone article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Who on earth would take the time to create an article about such a non-notable course? --Roisterer 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteZayZayEM 10:14, 30 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 Deville (Talk) 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCG International Risk[edit]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. 1190 Ghits; only this one is actually a third party article about the company, and it is not exclusively about SCG. Other hits are either press releases, directory listings, or the company's own website. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I've been through most of the citations from Jamie (thanks for the detailed list). Most do not qualify, but a couple do; I think the company is marginally notable and am changing to comment. I will look further at the WP:CORP policy and think about revising my vote again. I would vote Keep if some of the "opaque" sources are shown to be direct non-trivial coverage of SCG, as opposed to Jamie Smith. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Christie - thanks for doing a great job editing. But since you've looked at the contribution I've continued to add to it and feel that it actually does comply with WP:CORP which states that:

The criteria for companies and corporations requires that the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

As you can see there are considerably more than just the third party article you noted. I just hadn't the time to finish adding everything - the contribution is only a few hours old. These are comparable to other companies that have been used for their justification. Here's a list:

  • [35] Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns in the War on Terror by Robert Young Pelton (Crown, September 2006)
This is a book about the SCG's area; can't tell from Amazon what level of coverage there is. Jamie, could you give some information about the contents? Does it treat SCG specifically as a subject, e.g. by devoting a chapter to SCG? Or does it mention them as a background name, by saying for example that someone mentioned in the book works for them? If this book directly treats SCG as a primary subject, it would be strong evidence for notability. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This qualifies -- it's an article about the business of security, and it starts with a few seconds of interview with Jamie Smith, who had a bullet in his arm. SCG are not the direct topic of the article, but they are a lead example given as one of the businesses in this area. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Amazon story the content isn't clear; can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Virginia-Pilot Newspaper. Beach man wounded in mideast. A Virginia Beach security contractor was shot and wounded near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border this week. Jamie Smith, the owner of SCG International Risk, was hit in the arm Monday night...(April 10, 2004 in FRONT section, page A13 by Joanne Kimberlin)
I don't see how this makes SCG itself notable; as with a couple of other links here, the implied notability is more Jamie's than SCG's. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN Reporter Kevin Sites interview SCG CEO Jamie Smith. (Subject: Kidnapping of Robert Pelton, Meg Smaker and Mark Wedeven) (Date: 28Jan03)
This is hard to assess without knowing more about the interview. It sounds as though the topic was the kidnapping, and Jamie is being interviewed in his capacity as an expert. I don't think this contributes much to SCG's own notability. The intention of the notability clause in WP:CORP is that the writer took the business in question as their subject. That doesn't sound like it's the case here. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This qualifies; there are three paragraphs in this news story where Jamie Smith is interviewed specifically discussing security firms in Iraq and describing SCG's own deployment. It's not in-depth coverage, but it's there. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same quotes as the Trib piece above; given that the Tribune is the more important outlet, I don't think this adds anything. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview with Jamie Smith, the CEO of SCG (and also apparently the creator of this Wikipedia article). He was interviewed in his capacity as an erstwhile instructor of air marshals; the interviewer ends by saying that he is now CEO of SCG International, but there is no other mention of the company. This really isn't coverage of SCG itself. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a listing in an appendix that lists many companies; this is essentially a directory listing and doesn't qualify as coverage.
This is just a one-line mention of one of SCG's course in Pelton's article; this is very marginal to qualify as coverage of the company.Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie@scgonline.net 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:V M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, how the heck does this violate WP:V? O_o I think I meant WP:VAIN. Anyway, maybe weak keep is better, per Captainktainer. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 03:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much against my better judgment. That's an extensive list of sources right there. I'd much rather all of these companies would disappear off the face of the earth... but the fact of the matter remains that this company easily meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:V and WP:CORP. Captainktainer * Talk 23:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - keep. Meets requirements of WP:V and WP:CORP.Ghostscg 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- Geo Swan 07:46, 1 September 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.The original deletion comments asked for the deletion as too narrow a subject, and the last few keep comments state that the article has potential, but the rest of the comments are that it is currently too small. So, I'm merging and redirecting to List of birds on stamps, and if it is expanded, feel free to split it again. Titoxd(?!?) 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birds on stamps[edit]

I'm sure there's something wrong with this. Firstly, the page is very small, and secondly, there is not any piece of useful info there. " Birds on stamps is a very common theme in philately. Every country has produced some bird stamps. Often these are masterpieces of stamp design." - even a philatelist or an ornithologist wouldn't find anything of use here. However, this has quite some potential to be rescued and savoured. --Dangherous 12:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, worthless. Nuttah68 21:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep There are some rather informative articles (well lists, frankly) at Ships on stamps and People on stamps that I could see being useful to someone. This has the potential to develop into something like that. I agree that the article as it stands has no value, but with work...Dina 22:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC) The rewrite has strengthed my keep, thanks. Dina 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Merge and redirect per new info about List of birds on stamps Dina 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that I rewrote it as a more respectable stub (using some less than ideal sources, but that can always be worked on.) —Celithemis 10:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, good job Celithemis!!! Carlossuarez46 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep due to rewrite by Celithemis. People who rescue articles from AfD deserve congratulations, thanks, and a little bit of honor. Captainktainer * Talk 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect. Celithemis has put a lot of work into a) salvaging this article and b) now finding the article that this should all go into. Remember, of course, that we need to not violate the GFDL; if anything of the original article that was put up for AfD remains in the current stub, there needs to be a history merge, which will take admin intervention. Captainktainer * Talk 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I still question the topic's inclusion, but it was a nicely done re-write. Irongargoyle 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. It is a humble start, but looks interesting. RFerreira 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Sorry, I did not realize that a List of birds on stamps page had already existed. A merge there will suffice as well. RFerreira 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article appears to be trivial information. I'd have expected this article to have information on stamps that gained some notability, but it appears to be nothing more than a few facts. talk to JD wants e-mail 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Well, unbeknownst to me when I rewrote the stub, there is already a List of birds on stamps. If the stub were merged and redirected to this page, it would be consistent with Ships on stamps and People on stamps, both of which are similar redirects. —Celithemis 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these lists still trouble me as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Looking through a few I've not found a stamp on any of the lists that warrants an article of its own. Whilst this belongs in a Philately reference/catalogue it does not appear to be encyclopedic. Nuttah68 10:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've cat'ed and linked both ways with List of birds on stamps so it can be found. Now encyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. The "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not applicable. The topic is well-defined. Mukadderat 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has some potential. Birds on stamps no less notable than snakes on planes, I guess. Herostratus 18:14, 4 September 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 CSD G3. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bellamys Senior[edit]

Nonsense, and fiction ArtVandelay13 12:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A combination of a hoax and patent nonsense. Oldelpaso 12:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 12:21, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanscape[edit]

Advertisement according to your rules. i don't agree personally but I'm playing by the rules. Scottcabal 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just following the rules. you say this is advertisement so i listed it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottcabal (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete - unsourced, no sign of notability per WP:CORP. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be non-notable, especially considering its youth. -- Necrothesp 14:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - advertising and spam of a useless company - 15:45, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England and Spain football rivalry[edit]

This article does not describe a rivalry, rather it recounts a specific incident already covered in more depth in Ethnicity and football. Unlike say, Argentina and England football rivalry, England and Spain do not have a rivalry of note. Oldelpaso 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a rivalry. Punkmorten 17:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single incident does not consitute a rivalry. Robotforaday 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. England and Spain do not have a traditional rivalry like that compared to Argentina and Germany. --Ageo020 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One incident does not make a notable rivalry. -- Alias Flood 01:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very poor "article". aLii 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No rivalry to speak off (certainly not as far as the Spanish fans are concerned Dodge 00:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete England has notable football rivalries with Scotland, Germany and Argentina only. Piccadilly 13:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should really be a speedy delete. - Pal 00:10, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Bloch[edit]

the subject does not appear particularly notable. He does, however, appear to work for a respected weekly local/community newspaper with a circulation of 71,000. Ohconfucius 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are found that substantiate notability, then maybe. if you can find me I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established. -- Necrothesp 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've written articles for an international encyclopedia but I'm still not notable. Nuttah68 21:20, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Dartboard[edit]

This is weird. --Dangherous 12:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are found that substantiate notability. Addhoc 12:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following references being added. Addhoc 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Addhoc. Irongargoyle 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess. Weird I'll admit but a simple google search finds numerous independent sources. Nuttah68 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added two secondary references. Will find Addhoc. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:21, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parochialism in Sydney[edit]

anti-Sydney rant, original research/POV Deuterium 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete for now, I'll change my vote if this article is improved to something similar to Westies. Addhoc 12:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created during discussions at Talk:Westies (people) and to resolve an NPOV issue in the Wikipedia. You are welcome to participate in this discussion.
After the deletion of Easties a NPOV problem was created. Editors have been attempting to address this problem and to cover this issue in it entirety. Further reading is at User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people). you should acquaint yourself with all the issues before rushing to judgement. (My position was that both articles should have been deleted but some editors pushed for Easties to be deleted and Westies kept, thus the NPOV issue.)--WikiCats 13:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on your comment, Ok I didn't realise, and thanks for explaining, however currently the article is well below the quality of Westies, so I think weak delete is fair. Addhoc 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a stub and there is a basis for creating this article per the explanation provide by WikiCats above although there might be debate about the best title for it. I have expanded the stub a bit but a lot more work needs to be done. --Richard 16:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anti-Sydney rant. Don't keep and set a poor precedent. michael talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cited references are a blog entry, and an editorial. BigE1977 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being a soapbox. BigHaz 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There could be a case for a Regions of Sydney discussing the different areas of Sydney. However, this doesn't provide much of a basis for this article. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Editors have been in discussion to address this problem. The problem of NPOV has to be solved. If this article is deleted you can be assured that this crisis will be solved. Another article will be created. As long as one part of Sydney’s name calling war is portrayed (Westies), then the whole of the battle must be described.
I invite Deuterium, Addhoc, michael, Bige1977, BigHaz and Capitalistroadster to contribute here [36] to solving this issue for the Wikipedia. --WikiCats 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a Sydneysider myself, my knowledge of the stereotypes that one part of the city has for the other are going to be slim at best. That said, what we have here is and will remain (unless those involved in solving the NPOV problems on that article help with contributions here) an unsourced and potentially inaccurate series of comments. BigHaz 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the deletion of all these silly terms; they have no place on Wikipedia. michael talk 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't be much clearer. When one part of Sydney's name calling war was deleted it created a NPOV problem. The war was determined to be caused by Sydney's Parochialism. --WikiCats 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps all the parts of the war should go, particularly if they aren't all equally notable. Another alternative would be to subsume all the constituent parts into one article (such as this one), so that everything can be in the one place rather than risking deletion for non-notability or other reasons when it's split off into separate articles. A third alternative, particularly if there's some overarching need to have this particular article here, would be to add more sources to this one. BigHaz 07:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that the deletion of Easties caused a NPOV problem can only come from a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, and so should not be mentioned in this discussion. Having said that, I did agree previously that the material that WikiCats and Richard are trying to cover in this article could make a good article if well researched. However, I think it would be better as a section of a cleaned up Culture of Sydney than in this form. I guess I'm saying merge. JPD (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Culture of Sydney per JPD. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment The Culture of Sydney is about multiculturalism. It is about people getting along with each other. I don't think that they would be happy about making it to an article about Sydney's name calling war.
In any case, I have added several more references. --WikiCats 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article isn't and shouldn't be simply about multiculturalism or people getting along with each other. Any information worth having one these subcultures and stereotypes also should be talked about simply as a name calling war, but in a broader context. The Regions in Sydney suggestion from Capitalistroadster is another place where this might be covered in a broader context, but trying to only describe some "name calling war" is not helping anything. JPD (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would Wikipedia benefit from an article that is more or less going to be a class, ethnic and political battleground? You cannot speak for everyone in this article or cover all views; these type of terms are best left as hearsay and opinion. michael talk 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per michael. I originally merely placed a {{bias}} tag on the article, and came under a bit of fire because of it (see talkpage for juicy details, if you want 'em). An article such as this could never fully conform to the policies of NPOV and, to some extent, original research. Personal opinions do not an article make. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I created this article during discussion with other editors.
  • This debate is not a vote
  • The article was nominated for deletion within minutes of being started. It has been rewritten in neutral prose.
  • The article was proposed as a solution to a NPOV issue that had arisen after the deletion of one point of view in the Sydney name calling dispute
  • This is an attempt at an umbrella article to cover all points of view
  • Parochialism is an article that exists
  • One of the issues Westies (people) exists
  • The article is verifiable with numerous notable references
  • The article is not original research
  • The article is written from a neutral point of view in neutral prose
--WikiCats 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles similar to this one, such as Westies, should also be deleted. Slang terms to represent petty class, ethnic and political differences in Sydney do not need articles dedicated to them. Such an article will be based on biased sources (the primary source at the moment is from an online opinion column) and will also be succeptible to easy manipulation by those who want to discredit other groups. Article neutrality can't be claimed when the sources are opinionated.

I don't want to think about how poor an article on parochialism in my home city would be. michael talk 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sets a pretty poor precedent. Parochialism in Adelaide... Brisbane... Perth... Wooloomooloo... where are we going with this? — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This style of parochialism seems largely unique to Sydney and is well documented. --WikiCats 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sold on this "well documented" idea. The links provided on the article mention the general concept of parochialism in Sydney (so we know it exists, but nothing more). Failing that, the ones which actually identify more about the phenomenon are blogs and the like, which are questionable sources. It might be my Historian Hat talking here, but for something to be "well documented", there really should be more neutral sources talking about how the different parts of the city are viewed or perceived. This is the sort of thing I'd imagine a sociologist would have written something on, for example. BigHaz 12:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that parochialism in Sydney exists. There's one blog to demonstrate usage. There are notable references such as the Macquarie Dictionary/Book of Slang and the Sydney Morning Herald publication. --WikiCats 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are by no means reputable or "well documented". Two of them are opinion peices, two are simply small dictionary entries (if anywhere on Wikimedia, the slang terms should be on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia), and in one case, a comment replying to a blog post. Another speaks of the non-existence of 'parochialism in Sydney'. michael talk 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any discussion on such phenomena is more appropriate to a broader article on Sydney culture, provided it is supported by reliable sources. This article is not, and appears little more than a fork.--cj | talk 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Richardshusr has posted a request for feedback on the article. You may wish to give feedback to help him improve the article, rather than just deleting it. I noticed it has some references, and a quick glance does not reveal any severe problems. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:04, 30 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 Deville (Talk) 14:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AppZapper[edit]

This article reads as a thinly veiled ad for what is currently an insignificant product on the Mac. Not every application needs or deserves a WP page. pbones 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article does read like an advertisement, but after a rewrite I should be kept. AppZapper was reviewed by Macworld [37] a while ago and did get some coverage on other Mac related websites. I don't see why every app shouldn't deserve a page on Wikipedia, I mean, there articles on virtually every little detail, non-notable to some, in the Star Wars movies. A lot of small applications are covered in this encyclopedia, from open source commandline ones to commercial applications, and I think that's a good thing, in regard to completeness, as long as the articles don't read like an advertisement. mensch • t 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This doesn't sound very noteable to me, but I know nothing about macs - it could be. - Blood red sandman 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Star Wars is viewed and loved by tens of millions of fans. Random Mac applications are not. As for why every application -shouldn't- have a page, my answer would be that VersionTracker and MacUpdate handle this just fine, it's outside of WP's domain for all but the most notable applications (Photoshop, Office, etc.). pbones 06:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per mensch. Addhoc 13:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to rewrite the article to make it sound less like a set of marketing terms. mensch • t 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep WHAT!? This is the premier (sp? :[) uninstaller for Macs! Gaaah! How could this be up for deletion? If I were not a regular user of Wikipedia, I probably would have done that blog thing with the "hey everyone go vote keep". O_o M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've cat'ed and sorted the refs out. Seems fine to me as an encyclopaedia entry. BlueValour 03:31, 31 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County[edit]

All this page has said since December 2005 is "The Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County is the official arts council for Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA, and Forsyth County". Oh, and it has a picture and an external link. I'd like to AFD this under WP:N, but also because it has nothing of value. I mean, what else is "Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County" going to be? In its present state it is deserved to be flushed out of the English Wikipedia. Go ahead and expand if you wish. --Dangherous 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are aincluded which substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable local organisation. -- Necrothesp 14:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is proof of it being more notable than the average local organisation. Nuttah68 21:24, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprint dental[edit]

The article is nothing less than an advertisement for the organization mentioned within. Statements like:

Our extensive experience with dental practitioners across the UK and suppliers from across the world provide us with the enviable skills to deliver world class leading solutions to every conceivable requirement you may have

...are nothing but advertisement! Hence the article should be deleted from this encyclopedia.

{{advertisement}} tag was added to the page about two days ago. The author has not responded so far.

--Raanoo 06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure advertising. -- Necrothesp 14:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious WP:SPAM, appears to fail WP:CORP. Potentially insensitive Big Book of British Smiles joke withheld. --Kinu t/c 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, classic spam. Nuttah68 21:26, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley M. Faircloth[edit]

  • Delete Being KIA in Iraq is not grounds enough for notability. Not every Soldier or Marine killed deserves their own page here.--Looper5920 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - am moving deletion tag to the article page, where it belongs. Personally have no real opinion one way or another about the notability of the subject. Badbilltucker 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete requires a secondary reference to substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being killed in action is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Millions of people were killed in action in WWI and WWII and we certainly can't give all of them an article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Necrothesp 14:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tragic but not notable. Nuttah68 21:27, 26 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler[edit]

This article has been previously proposed for deletion.

  • Keep. Missler is less than credible, but then so is Uri Geller, and there's a Wikipedia page on him. Both can claim to be public figures; both are published authors. A neutral point-of-view page providing fair warning about Missler, unaccredited universities and so on does Wikipedia readers a service. (I'm interested because I'm currently debating deletion of Wikipedia's SWANsat page -- Missler signed off on Welty's SWANsat "PhD" dissertation, despite having no expertise in communications research - the unaccredited and entirely bogus Louisiana Baptist University strikes again.) Lloyd Wood 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete requires a secondary reference to substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quick check on Google reveals 85,600 hits, most of which are relevant. The article is written fairly well, contains sources, and suggests some degree of notability. Was this recommended for deletion because he runs an unaccredited institute? I don't get the point of this nomination. RFerreira 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable author.--Tdl1060 16:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - he is an extremely well-known author. Go to amazon.com and key in "Chuck Missler" - he has plenty of books. His theology is a bit out there (Bible codes, UFOs), but that doesn't matter as far as his notability. BigDT 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep actually, as a nomination made by a banned user. Take a look at article history. The AFD tag was added by a mostly vandalism AOL user and the "2" was added by an impersonator of admin Tony Sidaway. Given that the impostor's edit was four minutes after the IP added the AFD tag, I think it's reasonable to assume that the two are one in the same. Thus, speedy keep as a nomination made by a banned user. BigDT 18:58, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Championship Wrestling[edit]

None notable wrestling (where people pretend to be wrestlers), thus vanity. Englishrose 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - e-feds are a dime a dozen. I doubt any of them could satisfy WP:WEB, and this one, being rather new, doesn't look to make it. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:21, 21 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and very poorly written. -- Necrothesp 14:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non notable e-fed. Thε Halo Θ 16:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. We've been over this dozens of times at WP, the consensus is that individual e-feds are NOT notable. TJ Spyke 21:52, 26 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. --- GIen 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer England[edit]

DELETE due to the lack of infromation and interest, this page should be deleted. MgHoneyBee 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem notable. --Yamla 04:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all these diva search contestants need to go Renosecond 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wait to make sure she isn't signed to a WWE contract first Raythen 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary reference are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the keep voter, the thing to do in that instance is to wait until she gets a WWE contract. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. ColourBurst 13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable model. -- Necrothesp 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 16:20, 26 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 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph N. Hall[edit]

Non notable person. I certainly have nothing against User:Joe n bloe, but I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia. This is the second time this article has been nominated. For review, please see the first nomination. Also note the user history of the user who recreated the page. Ktdreyer 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Mark Jason Dominus whose page was nominated twice. (He's a friend of mine whose position in the Perl community is I think fairly comparable.) You guys can do what you want, but I have about 25,000 Google hits, a (very well known and consistently very well reviewed) book, 2 years of articles in .login;, other national publications, and a personal history in the 1970s (unrelated to Perl obviously) that made me known to probably 10-25% of the US population at one time or another. I don't know the person who put the page back but people will continue to do so IMO. If you vote to "keep" I will fix it so that it's accurate. As far as WP:BIO goes it meets: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" and (for print and video coverage from about 1975-1977 of my history as a child prodigy and survivor of acute lymphocytic leukemia) "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events / The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." For example 1975 interview on ABC Evening News, August 1976 Reader's Digest article entitled "Prodigy from Plumtree", Visit to the White House (page 4), Reference to appearance on Tom Synder's late night Tomorrow Show. I don't know who User:Ktdreyer is but I've never heard of him and this is one of only two or three articles he's proposed (re-proposed this time) for deletion. Joseph N Hall 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC); updated Joseph N Hall 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC); URLs Joseph N Hall 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, author of a notable book. Possible merge with the book article, but given the scope for expansion indicated above that seems unnecessary. Kappa 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary reference are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm going to take a crack at this. Joseph N Hall 13:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real notability established. -- Necrothesp 13:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: marginally notable for Effective Perl Programming alone. Joe, none of the other articles/incidents help your WP:BIO case if they are not mentioned and cited in the article; that said, it is awkward (per WP:VAIN) for you to write your own article. bikeable (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm aware of that. I really don't want to work on it because I have very mixed feelings about that period, but on the other hand I can provide a starting point. Please see User:Joe_n_bloe/Play and let me know if that seems acceptable. Many people have remained genuinely curious even after 30 years. On the other other hand, I'm not sure I want the nutjobs to start tracking me down again. Meanwhile, back to the book: many Perl authors (and authors in general) have stubs in Wikipedia, and I personally find them very useful, especially if they do include a bit of biographical material. Joseph N Hall 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the author of a notable book, meets my interpretation of WP:BIO inclusionary guidelines. RFerreira 07:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the author of a notable book, and possibly more books in the future. bbx 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the user who created the page (I didn't know I was recreating it at the time) I think it is odd that an entry for the book is acceptable but not the man who wrote it (the book has been known in the Perl community for a considerable length of time) and that's why I added the entry. It might be fair to say this should be combined into the book entry. I knew there were other reasons for Joseph's notability going back to the seventies, unrelated to the book, but didn't know all the details. Micmath 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the person looks very notable to me Yuckfoo 00:15, 1 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anagrams[edit]

I've submitted this page for deletion as I can't see that it has anything to do with an encyclopedia. There are dozens of website on the net that have lists of anagrams and that is where this page belongs - on a personal website or a blog entry, IMO not wikipedia.

If anyone wants to restructure it in some radical way, great, but all I see is a list of randomly chosen anagrams, many of which are original research and have no base on the web. Mglovesfun 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a humour piece plagiarized from elsewhere. The USSR's name was the cause of their downfall? oops. Still, Unencyclopedic.Michael Dorosh 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete haven't even found a single reference. Addhoc 13:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither useful nor funny. Pavel Vozenilek 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Ktdreyer 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:NOT as an indiscriminate collection of information. Thε Halo Θ 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Halo. There are an infinite number of anagrams, these are some of them, chosen at random. --Xyzzyplugh 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, intriguing as some of these might be, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kinu t/c 16:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eel Ted, not encyclopedic. Nuttah68 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mglovesfun 00:06, 28 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 close. Templates for deletion is around the corner. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TNA iMPACT! ratings[edit]

Pointless template Brad Blaze 02:29, 24 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Dahlia Murder (band)[edit]

Votes[edit]

In favor[edit]

  1. Gulivar 11:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pasajero 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (no need for duplicates, see The Black Dahlia Murder)[reply]
  3. (sign here to vote in favor of the deletion)

Against[edit]

  1. (sign here to vote against the deletion)

Comments[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted Gulivar 11:45, 24 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, does not seem to be even close to meeting WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZubZub[edit]

This subject of this page is not notable under wikipedia guidelines. Qrc2006 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support per above Qrc2006 20:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete requires a secondary reference to substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe the band does not pass guidelines set in WP:MUSIC, particularly this one:
Has released two or more albums on a major label or 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).
The band is under Rubbish Records, which in and of itself is not a notable record label- I can't find any independent coverage, and they seem to be fairly new. I also don't think one review is enough to pass verifiability standards.
If anything, I think this guideline might apply because the bassist sounds like he is potentially notable- the thing is, he doesn't have an article right now.
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. --Wafulz 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. Mukadderat 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wafulz. Zaxem 05:51, 3 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas V (disambiguation)[edit]

Only two pages listed, which now disambiguate directly to each other. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom--Jusjih 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move Atlas V rocket to Atlas V (currently a redirect to the rocket) so that it matches Atlas II and Atlas (missile), which do not use "rocket" as part of the name (it would be fine if "rocket" was used for disambiguation, such as Atlas (missile) instead of missile, though). Alternatively, move it to Atlas V (rocket) and move Atlas (missile) to Atlas (rocket) (I think the latter would be better off there in any case, since they are usually not called missiles). Another alternative would be to include "rocket" in all of their names. -- Kjkolb 18:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a way to sort out this naming through a new naming convention at WP:ICBM, but there hasn't been much input on it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would also support the move of the Atlas V rocket page. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:31, 29 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. Deletion is not an option here, even the nominator is not intending to delete this. If you want to discuss redirecting or not redirecting, Talk:Trillion (and/or the talk page of the proposed redirection target) is the proper place. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trillion[edit]

R. Koot keeps changing this to a redirect without discussion. I think we should reach a consensus about what to do with this article. I don't think redirecting to names of large numbers is right, as most links to trillion want information about the actual number, not the name of it. Also is much interesting information about the number and other thirteen-digit numbers here. Wii gok 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion - I think maybe you have listed this in the wrong place. This is where you list pages that you want to be deleted. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:26, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insert Funn13 Here[edit]

Article presumably authored by one of the creators, Beast Megatron (talk • contribs). Was tagged for notability; tag removed without comment. Wikipedia tops the Google hits, which proves that this is effective as WP:SPAM if nothing else; gets 7 unique ghits of 69 total. No references cited and the Google results including nothing that could be construed as a reliable source. Fails to demonstrate notability per WP:WEB; fails to meet WP:V; presumably WP:SPAM and/or WP:VAIN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Totally, inexplicably, irredeemably and utterly fails to assert notability per WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary reference are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 14:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find nothing that makes this notable, and it fails WP:WEB as such. Thε Halo Θ 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This "webcomic" is actually hosted on a forum thread. I didn't tag it as CSD in case one of those "A7 is for bios only" admins removed it. - Hahnchen 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, webcomic hosted on a forum? Utterly fails WP:WEB, possible WP:SPAM per the large collection of external links to each... and... every... issue. --Kinu t/c 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insert detetion here. Irongargoyle 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of having any chance of satisfying WP:WEB. Considering that is a webcomic hosted on a forum, both of which must provide evidence of notablility, this is a perfect storm of non-notability. Also, potential WP:VSCA per the lengthy description of the entire storyline and links to every single issue.-- danntm T C 20:41, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Vibert[edit]

problematical article per WP:AUTO and WP:V. The article is about a French journalist photographer who appears to be an autobio (Author's name is Actionreporter - same as the domain name he registered for his personal website). Scored 503Ghits, of which 70 non-mirror, other than wiki and his own site, it shows he is indeed a photographer who gives digital photo courses at Nikon france, as well as take action photos. Little independently verifiable info about his life and his businesses. His site is linked to 78 pages, of which 47 were [external] pages, several were from macandphoto.com, which he uses to publicise his photography courses, and a to number of private blogs testimonials about his photography. Searching under ridingzone sourced info to prove that the site was indeed bought by Wanadoo, division of FranceTel. The Dec '01 article mentions staff grievances at the intended closure of the business (mixing editorial with ecommerce) which originally forecast FFR20m turnover in the first year, only to see it come in at FFr400k. Ohconfucius 13:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This simply does not appear to be a sufficiently notable person to have their own article - also if its autobiography it is inherently flawed without reliable sources--Spartaz 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The world is full of journalists, that in itself is not enough to gain an article. Nuttah68 21:37, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Williamson[edit]

Looks like vanity and advertising. Head of what appears to be a very minor company. -- Necrothesp 13:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the companies this person runs, which also appear to be pure advertising:
-- Necrothesp 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable and spam also for the companies. Nuttah68 21:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes - I suggest keeping Mr. Williamson's record. He is President of the company and known throughout his industry. Beno1983 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable references are provided other than his own website and thus doesn't meet WP:BIO. Samw 23:26, 27 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. Punkmorten 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powers Of Preternia[edit]

Non-notable podcast, only 20 unique Ghits. [38] Was tagged by an anon, but nomination page couldn't be completed. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 14:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Addhoc. Zaxem 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Princess Elena of Romania.--SB | T 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Medforth-Mills[edit]

Another minor royal personage connected to the British and Romanian royal families. Article was prod'd, prod removed. The subject is approx 85th in line for the British throne and may or may not be in line for the Romanian throne were the monarchy ever to be restored there (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Kreuger for discussion of hypothetical Romanian succession.) Beyond 85th in line and being a granddaughter of ex-King Michael (but not of a reigning monarch as she was born after Michael was exiled) the article makes no claims to notability. It is, inevitably, unreferenced. Google hits are the usual WP and echoes plus royalty sites, none of which constitute WP:RS per WP:V or WP:BIO. No gnews hits for Medforth-Mills. It therefore seems unlikely that the subject meets WP:BIO guidelines for biographies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 26 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 as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whiting Lane School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. (Tagged by another editor. Nomination was incomplete, this page was not created.) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. "Elementary school exists" + "Has a principal and a mascot" does not = "Significant in the realm of schools". -- Kicking222 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merging with West Hartford, Connecticut, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 15:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge into an article about the school district AdamBiswanger1 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Right now, it is not notable. Thε Halo Θ 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article contains no assertion of notability or importance, so to keep it would violate WP:NOT. GRBerry 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious how you guys are defining notability. Are you using the proposal WP:SCHOOL? If so, this school does meet the criteria because there are multiple non-trivial works about the school. Not all are currently cited in the article, but there is [39] and [40] (originally published in an architectural journal) as well as some local media coverage. Furthermore, WP:NOT absolutely does not say that articles need to have any notability or importance to be included. JYolkowski // talk 20:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JYolkowski. --Merovingian - Talk 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established and verifiable, thus significant in the realm of schools. Kappa 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this content meets all relevant policies. The article provides important and significant information about this school. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete High schools may be notable by precident. Elementary schools, not so much. Resolute 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are notable and a good number of elementary schools have been kept. Piccadilly 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary onto the West Hartford, Connecticut page, unless there's a matching school district page where it would be a better fit. I believe the proposed WP:SCHOOLS is encouraging merging these types of low-notability school pages, in preference to deletion. — RJH (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Christopher Parham and Piccadilly. I will refer this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. --TheM62Manchester 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per kappa and jyolkowski this article meets school guideline Yuckfoo 22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, almost all schools are notable, as is this one. bbx 08:08, 30 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 as a substantially identical repost of deleted material. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Caída de Edgar[edit]

This is a recreation duplicate of an article that was previously deleted as Edgar se cae; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar se cae. Jay Maynard 14:02, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DillonsMP3 Source[edit]

Contested prod. WP:WEB, self-promotion, Alexa rank is 969,691 VoiceOfReason 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included which substantiate notability. Addhoc 15:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. AdamBiswanger1 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now, fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 16:11, 26 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 - G6.--Andeh 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia (disambiguation)[edit]

Nonsense, no sources --Barnaul 14:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete not even a functioning disambiguation page. Addhoc 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD G6. Tagged as such. MER-C 14:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per nom. Agne 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Barnaul 15:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD G6. Thε Halo Θ 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above--Edtalk c E 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete please -Markeer 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G6 is used for a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, so I think it's doubly applicable if it points to none. --Kinu t/c 16:50, 26 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 as an attack page. It is extremely unlikely that someone who supposedly murdered so many people would not have a single relevant Google result. The dying of a tumor in his rectum is also suspicious. It appears that there is someone in the present day who had the same name, which may be the person being attacked. There is a (non-attack) memorial page for him (the person in the article supposedly died in 1922, but that does not mean much). -- Kjkolb 17:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliks Sauvè[edit]

Google turned up nothing for either of the books listed as references, and neither did the Library of Congress database. In addition, Googling Aliks Sauvè truns up nothing relevant. Looks like a hoax, and is definitely unverifiable. (I notice a similarly-named article has been deleted previously; not sure if it was related) -- makomk 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Not verifiable, and the author appears to be a troll fond of personal attacks, both in articles and discussions. --Wafulz 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes the two articles are related. There user who posted the "sources" on the article also requested the creation of the other bogus article. Calling WP:HOAX on this one. --Wafulz 15:26, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of Christian holidays[edit]

Unused disambiguation page (no article links to it). Also an unlikely search term, although one editor has claimed to have searched on it before. Finally, it's POV to include Spring Holiday as a disambiguation item, because it's POV to imply that "Spring Holiday" is evidence of secularization of Christian holidays. (And if Spring Holiday is removed, there's no longer any need for a disambiguation page.) Powers T 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, disambiguation pages are for when there are articles on different topics that may be confused with each other. There is no way that someone is going to confuse the article Secularization of Christmas with Spring Holiday. -- Kjkolb 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. I think the respective pages might be salvagable, but the disambiguation page is pointless (except for the "point" in POV). Irongargoyle 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepAIUI 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: user's fourth edit. Powers T 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misuse of a disambiguation page GRBerry 05:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful onward direction. I am the user who has searched on the term. I have also nominated articles to be merged there rather than standalone, ie combine Secularisation of Christams and Spring Holiday into one article. It might not be a good example of a disambiguation page. It is however, a useful redirect page to two articles on related topics without producing unnecessary forking and/or repetition. It is highly unlikely looking at the current state of the AfD on Spring Holiday, that that article will be deleted. A redirect to the more specific article will still be useful. I don't think people would guess wihtougt this linking article that one would find information about an aspect of the secularisation of Easter under the title "Spring Holiday". I disagree that it is POV to suggest that "Spring Holiday" is evidence of secularisation of Easter. That is what that article is about and current references 1, 2, & 9 support that assertion, particularly the reference to Bridenbaugh v. O'Bannon, where the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals cited, in part, that referring to Good Friday as "Spring Holiday" was evidence of a secular purpose and therefore not unconstitutional. To my mind this is quite adequate and neutral evidence that "Spring Holiday" is one aspect of secularization of Christian holidays.--Arktos talk 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree that Bridenbaugh is evidence for the "secularization of Easter". All it means is that giving people Good Friday off is ok if it's called something else. The POV that that constitutes "secularization" is not neutral. I continue to maintain that the phenomenon of "Spring Holiday" has nothing to do with any supposed "secularization" of Easter. Powers T 14:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AYArktos; expand/merge. Whether or not some Christian holidays are being "secularized", the fact that a significant number of Americans believe this is the case means we should have an article on the debate. I believe Secularization of Christmas is a subset of this, and Spring Holiday may or may not be a subset. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-27 22:24Z
    • For the record, I would not object to an actual article on the subject, if it was NPOV and well-written. This is not such an article; it is an attempt at a disambiguation page, and that's what I nominated it for deletion. =) Powers T 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a good start on the road to this topic, about as useful as an article on the De-Catholicization of Roman Catholic holidays to rant about how protestants have usurped the one-and-true-mother-church, blah blah blah. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a disambiguation page, nor a summary page. Has no place on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:13, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GravityZoo Company[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only 196 results in google and no ranking in alexa. Notability not sourced or properly ascerted and near as I can find fails WP:WEB. Lid 15:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Only 31 of those Google hits are unique. ... discospinster talk 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like blatant advertisement at the monent, but I am willing to change my mind if this article is re-written to conform with the relevant guideline. --Pkchan 09:00, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistula[edit]

At first, this seemed like just another band vanity page, and after the creator didn't respond to my comments on their talk page, I speedied it. However, the creator left some comments on my talk page, and I now believe that this article could actually stay on Wikipedia. I'm putting it up for AFD, but abstaining from voting since I'm a bit ambiguous on this. I'll let you guys decide. - ulayiti (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I believe this article should stay on Wikipedia for the following reasons: 1. This is not a vanity or promotional page for the band. 2. This article provides information about the first virtual/concept band in the Philippines and their achievements. 3. It focuses on a band that is pioneering a new genre in the Philippine music scene. 4. Mistula gives a glimpse of the current innovations that impact the Philippine rock scene. 5. This supports the Wikipedia article virtual band, where Mistula was used as an example. --Webmessiah 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah[reply]
  • Weak keep appears to have received attention from MTV Philippines, a google search also backs this.--Andeh 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Webmessiah stated, Mistula is the first virtual band in the Philippines, and they are indeed pioneering a new genre in the local music scene. Their music says a lot about the Filipino faith and culture. Not only are they well-known in the Philippines, but are also known internationally due to the fact that they web-based and accessible to everyone. Silentaria 16:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Info is accurate, support can be backed up from mentioned sources (MTV Philippines, Myx, Pinoy Radio, Rakista, Philmusic). Google search displays snippets of band info, this article collects and sums up everything and therefore helpful to both old and new followers of the band and the genre they have created --Puppet Prophet 18:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Puppet Prophet[reply]
  • Keep especially per Webmessiah #5 above. And seems notable enough. Dina 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Webmessiah's five reasons. Plus it has placed in international competitions. GBYork 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Mistula is part of the Wikipedia entry for Pinoy rock
  • Keep This is also a great reference on the influence of the web and how the band has used this to reach an international audience. It also links in with Super Dollfie, Ball-jointed doll Cresh24 15:02, 30 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeremy Kyle Show[edit]

This page should be deleted as wikipedia is not a collection of t.v. shows that are aired. The t.v show is in the form of a The Jeremy Kyle Show The t.v show is in the form of a chat show and is low on factual content. The article is a short stub like article that dose not have a place on wikipedia. It is badly written and unrefrenced and contains original research.--Lucy-marie 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe television shows on major networks do merit articles, since they are well known and therefore can pass verifiability. Their ratings are tracked, and their airdates are documented, so original research can be avoided. It might need a little bit of cleaning, but it definitely doesn't merit deletion. It has also been in the news. --Wafulz 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A real television show, as shown on ITV1 and ITV2. I will try to fix the article in a moment. Iolakana•T 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an American I'm not familiar with ITV, but from what I've read it seems like a major network. Any show on a major network is notable. SliceNYC 18:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is even orse thgere is now less information than befoe so it now goes from stub like to being an actual stub--84.67.170.243 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a solid stub to me. SliceNYC 18:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as entirely notable. The solution for most "short stub like" articles is to expand them, not delete them. Molerat 18:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming up next... how to keep an article on Wikipedia. --Nydas 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, the nominator struck through my comment as 'tottal irellevant'. I thought that whimsical comments weren't totally disallowed, especially in blatantly obvious cases like this.--Nydas 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TV shows are inherently notable. If Holmes & Yo-Yo can have an article ... 23skidoo 06:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. I seem to remember the article being somewhat bigger, mind, but even in its current state, keep. --Kiand 15:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is short but i'm sure it will be built upon. Better than some stubs.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  15:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the flagship daytime shows on the UK's second most significant television channels. Not only notable because it's a tv show but because it happens to be more notable than most UK shows. MLA 08:29, 29 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 --Wafulz 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Miller[edit]

Seems to be a page with an identity crisis. It started out as an article abouta musician, and now it's about a fencing coach? Either way, the coach is not notable. This Google search comes up with one hit (the Wikipedia article), and no other informatin could be found. The page fails under WP:BIO and WP:V. It had two prods, but they were removed by an anon. --Wafulz 16:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The fencing instructor is obviously not notable, and the version about him is probably vanity. However, the musician of this name appears to be notable. See this Google search about the musician. I've reverted this article to the version about the musician. Rohirok 16:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination I did a little more research into the guitarist and I'm convinced. I'll change it to speedy keep. --Wafulz 16:45, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Robots from Space[edit]

An article, unreferenced, on a webcomic which appears not to meet WP:WEB standards, or WP:V ones. Created by Candent shlimazel (talk • contribs), who appears to have contributed to this article only, not that this inevitably means that WP:SPAM or WP:VAIN apply here. The number of ghits is low, and there seems not to be even an interview with the creator on the web. Nothing resembling a reliable source popped out in my efforts to find one, which doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one. For me, this fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Mussey[edit]

Complete and obvious hoax. The name, when searched with quotes, registers a whopping ONE Ghit. fuzzy510 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Her name could be Susan Mussey (see the first hit), but even that gets extremely few Google hits. So delete. Punkmorten 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find a Susan Kempf (nee Mussey) who is a Providence graduate and used to be an assistant (not even head) coach on the Ohio State women's hockey team. And I find no evidence that she was the first female collegiate ice hockey player as claimed. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. --Kinu t/c 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Kinu. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No obvious signs of Jack Mussey either on Google. Richard Pinch 07:23, 28 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:G4. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivor Episodes[edit]

I AFD'd the page a few weeks ago. The result was delete, however, it was recreated on August 20th. The page has even less than it did before the deletion. Please look at the old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Survivor episodes TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant, the episodes are listed on each show's article, like Survivor: Borneo. I would have speedy deleted it as recreated content, but there was not much participation in the first AfD. -- Kjkolb 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:08, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO Club pages[edit]

Was speedy-nominated but an editor untagged it. Presuming good faith untag, although no reason was given, so might as well bring it here. Soo 17:46, 26 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 Discussion closed. List of Smallville Episodes will stay in existence.

Please see discussion about individual Episode pages here: Talk:List of Smallville episodes Bignole
(close by non-admin, nominator has withdrawn AfD and no additional delete votes -- Ned Scott 04:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

List of Smallville episodes[edit]

This page has created a redundancy in the Smallville episode pages. Seasonal pages have already been in place for almost a year, while this page has just been created. This page is in poor quality and contains incorrect information. Though it may be a more common practice to list episodes this way, it isn't a mandatory practice. The Seasonal pages have been around longer, and have managed to condense the information into what is important, instead of creating individual episode pages that just draw out the plot details. Seasonal pages are an improvement on "episode lists". They don't create excess pages for needless plot details, keep "trivia" to what is important and noteable, keep "guest stars" to major roles and not "the milk man standing in the background barely in focus". Bignole 17:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not concrete, and Smallville Season pages are an improvement on the "list of episode" type pages. There are not enough "allusions" per episode to provide support for an entire episode page, but, there are so many in a season that it's good to have a page to list them all. Smallville is unique to most television shows, because it has multiple mediums to allude to for the same character. What is proposed for Smallville is having 6 or so seasonal pages, as opposed to having 130+ episode pages that, for no other reason than to expand a plot into scene for scene description, doesn't have enough info to support a page. Writers and Directors can be listed with the short plot description on the seasonal page. True trivia can be noted under that, because true trivia doesn't occur in every single episode. Quotes are reserved for Wikiquote. Seasonal pages list important guest stars, not every Joe Blow in the show. Also, you should note that all episodes in the Season pages are linked to WikiCities http://smallville.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, where that type of information (expanded plot, goofs, all guest stars [even ones that are not prominant in the episode], and other less than encyclopedic information) is more appropriate. Bignole 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against Deletion The content and quality of the seasonal pages will be preserved and moved to new articles for each episode. Having an article for each episode allows more information about each episode to be preserved in an appropriate location. The seasonal summary pages and List of Smallville allusions have to exclude otherwise appropriate information to avoid becoming large and cluttered.

The page was only recently created; that is not finished is no reason to delete it. A tag at the top of the page appropriately notes this fact. It is not linked to from the main Smallville article, not will it be until it is ready.

The format proposed follows the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. List of Smallville allusions is strong evidence that there is "enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes" to warrant individual episode pages.

Debate History The debate grew out of a discussion of what merited inclusion in List of Smallville allusions (Talk). I (Anþony) proposed that the Allusions page be eventually removed in favor of a Trivia or References section in individual episode pages yet to be created. Upon learning of the plan to create pages for each episode, the discussion spilled over into Talk:List of Smallville episodes, where Bignole immediately suggested deleting the page in favor of the current per-season format.

  • Keep per reasons stated above. -Anþony 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why should it be a work in progress to begin with? Individual pages contain information that is highly unencyclopedic to begin with, and better suited for Wikia (where all the episodes are already linked to in the Season pages). Why should a creation even begin if pages that are already in place, and doing quite well in editorship, need a little fixing up themselves? Deviations are sometimes needed with guidelines, especially ones that create needless pages. Oh, and as for the "Allusions" page, that is better suited in Wikia also. By principle it's trivia, and trivia is not encyclopedic. Bignole 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What information about TV shows should be included in an online encyclopedia is definitely controversial. What's encyclopedic to one person may be unencyclopedic to another. It's a matter of opinion. I've been working on these kind of pages for a while and my guestimate is that it's about 40/60 or 50/50 for delete/keep. Without a consensus for deletion these pages usually stay. Also, being on wikia not does not mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia. We're trying to create a one-stop shop. As for the "allusions" page, it has been nominated for deletion several times and survived. It will probably be nominated again, most likely with the same results. - Peregrinefisher 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a nice definition of what is usually considered encyclopedic, and unless justifiable you can assume that it isn't. Trivia is always considered unencyclopedic, because it usually involves fanboy information. Special guest stars are trivia, because they are "special guests" and not "recurring guests". Goofs fall under trivia. Quotes have their own Wiki site. Featured music is also trivia, because there is nothing special about it, it changes each episode. Just because you want to note it as a fan doesn't make it any less unencyclopedic, which is where Wikia comes in. Visit some of the episode pages, you'll find that many have the information you are trying to put in a Wikipedia page. There is no such thing as a "one stop shop". If you are linking to another Wikipedia page then that's the same as linking to a Wikia page. You aren't putting all this information into one page, you are creating 130 pages, which is hardly a "one stop shop". Keep it where it belongs. Oh, and the fact that "Allusions" has been nominated and never deleted doesn't change the fact that it's in the wrong place. It is relevant, because the allusions are so relevant to the show, just not this site. They are still unencyclopedic, and should be at Wikia. Bignole 05:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This discussion has happened with many list of episode pages and the result has been to keep them. Instead of trying to get rid of just this page you might put your effort into creating consensus to remove all lists like this. You could start here. If the general rule becomes that pages like this don't belong on wikipedia then I would support deletion. - Peregrinefisher 06:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a bunch of fans get together to overrule policy doesn't make it correct. Policy is not guideline. Everything you wish to add to a single episode is fancruft, and by doing so a violation of policy about this encyclopedia. Just because currently other shows are getting away with it does not make it "standard". Not everyone can monitor everything, and you usually have fans creating/editing things of that nature. Also, by creating this page, and the 130 other pages of episodes you will be deleting information that already exists. Everyone of the episodes have already been created on Wikia (in their proper place), all you have to do is click their titles. YOU are creating the redundancy, because they already exist. Bignole
I would like to point you all to this page Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes which explains the guideline for creating show pages. It stipulates that you do a Show Page (i.e. Smallville (TV series)), then you do a Season page (i.e. Smallville season 5) (you'll note it says "logical division" and an entire list of episodes altogether is not a division), then you do episode pages. Also, note that this page is part of the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion page, which is about discussing changes to Wikipedia Policy, where Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes was created by a user bypassing Wiki's policy change page. Even the WikiProject page lists the CD page as policy, in it's "additional guidelines" section. The question now is not about who is right, because technically, both the season page and the list page is a format for creating the TV show, but the question is which has the right of way. Preference for one style or the other is an opinion, and we know what opinions are here at Wikipedia. If the List page had been created first I would yield, but the Season pages were created months before this page and they are in better working order (minus some changes that need to be made to the summaries and a coulpe other fixer-ups, but much better than the List page). This isn't about what editors prefer, but about which was used first. The Season pages have seniority over the List page. Bignole
  • Keep as a standard, conventional list of episodes. Not being a Smallville fan, I don't understand all this talk of "allusions". At the moment the page looks hideous and is in need of a massive cleanup. Summaries need rewriting to be more encyclopaedic. The images are superfluous: they are mainly there for decoration, don't add anything to the content, and are thus, against fair use policy. The problem with this type of show is that it attracts early teen fanboys to add unproffessional elements. I'd rather see it deleted than be kept in it's current awful state. The JPStalk to me 19:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but do not create individual episode articles until the season articles are well-referenced, episode by episode. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per request for review of my vote (see User_talk:Armedblowfish#List_of_Smallville_episodes), I've noticed that there seems to be two issues being discussed here: a) should individual episode articles be created and b) should the episodes be listed all on one page, or by season.
    • For the first issue, as I stated above, I have no problem with individual episode as long as the season articles are first well referenced, episode by episode. a google search for Smallville episodes reveals a large number of hits, suggesting that this shouldn't be a problem. You should, of course, also use the episodes themselves (primary sources) as references, see {{cite visual}} and {{cite episode}}. However, please be aware of WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources, which explains acceptable uses of primary sources. In addition, while a number of the google hits may not meet WP:RS for factual information about the episodes, citing them for their opinions and analysis (with attribution) shouldn't be a problem.
    • As for the second issue, it was initially my understanding that season articles would be preferred if there were no individual episode articles, and a list would be preferred if there were individual episode articles. However, if I was wrong about this, and individual episode articles are created, but season articles are kept instead of one big list, consider creating a category for Smallville episodes as a compromise. The category could be organized by season/episode number instead of alphabetically, see Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes for an example. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the pages need to be well referenced. I think this is best done on each episodes own page so I have included a references section on each (see here). Currently it just lists where the featured music info comes from but it can be expanded easily. This will allow for different references for each episode as needed. The season pages weren't well referenced and hopefully this will move us in the right direction. - Peregrinefisher 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how referencing each episode individually would be easier on the individual pages. Wouldn't it be better to start by providing minimal per-episode references on the season pages, and expand to individual episode pages when you have enough references to draw material from to justify doing so? If it's a matter of organization, see m:Cite/Cite.php. (Of course, as one of the editors ultimately writing the articles, how you go about referencing them is up to you. Consider this advice. Having well-referenced episode articles will make them less likely to be deleted as non-notable fancruft.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too tell you the truth I don't really know how to reference stuff very well. I know there's a giant page on how to do it but could you give me a quick tutorial on how I should reference say trivia from Imdb and quotes from wikia? Thanks. - Peregrinefisher 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to use inline references (Cite.php), you basically enclose the citation in <ref> and </ref> tags after the piece of text you are referencing, and put <references /> on the bottom of the page in a section entitled "References" (or possibly "Citations"). See {{imdb}} for citing the IMDB. For example, <ref name="IMDBlamo">{{imdb name|id=2238804|name=Adrian Lamo}}</ref> produces:[1] (Click on the little number to see the reference at the bottom of this AfD). By using the name attribute,[1] I can use a reference multiple times,[1] while only having to type out the whole thing once, and only having it appear once on the bottom of the page.[1] For citation after the first one, I simply type <ref name="IMDBlamo" />. Wikia does not actually meet WP:RS, being not only another wiki, but part of our very own Wikimedia foundation, thus constituting a self-reference. (You can of course link to Wikia, just not as a reference.)
Other templates you can use in between the ref tags (or outside them) are {{cite visual}}, {{cite episode}},[2] and {{cite web}}[3]. (Also see Category:Citation templates.) You can, of course, construct your own citations by hand.[4] (If you want to see the text for the later examples, just look at the wiki source for this page.) I hope that helps, but please feel free to ask me for more help on my talk page at any time. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Factual correction: Wikia is not actually part of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, Wikia, Inc. was also founded by Jimmy Wales, like the Wikimedia Foundation. In any case, it still doesn't meet WP:RS. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll start using them. - Peregrinefisher 23:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at Pilot (Smallville episode)? I put it in how I thought it should go but the whole references section disappeared. You can see my attempt if you click on edit the page. There may be a problem because the page is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0702990/quotes. - Peregrinefisher 23:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Kay. Everything after the Quotes section disappeared because of a mistyped </ref> tag. Basically, it thought everything in the article after the initial opening <ref> tag was part of the reference. (An easy mistake to make.) Also see Category:External link templates, which among other things lists different IMDB templates for different URL formats. However, apparently {{imdb title}} adds a closing slash that causes the particular URL you want to link to to break. So I substed it (note that substing does not work withing <ref> tags) and fixed the URL manually. I also appended the date I retreived the URL on, which is standard for {{cite web}}, and a good idea for web references (in case the page changes or disappears). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JPS and Armedblowfish - no particular reason to delete. The template even states it is a work in progress. In addition, having had a look at them, the "season" pages are also in need of having the "magazine teaser" style summaries re-written. Exclamation marks are always a bad sign in an encyclopedia. Bob talk 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created a created a page for Pilot (Smallville episode) so we can start working on the formatting for the individual pages. For now I won't work on any others because we don't want them to diverge from the series page's entries. At some point we should make a big push and do them all at once. Contact me if you want get together and do that. - Peregrinefisher 19:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently this page looks pretty ugly to me, clean it up and sumarise the episodes. Keep long info on the ep. page it's self. Also be more careful when chosing stills for episodes and make show they offer criticaal commentery for the episode in question and that the imagery info being conveyed is also conveyed in the summary. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If someone knows an episode's title and doesn't know what season it's in, this is a much more convenient way to find it. The page should, of course, be cleaned up properly and should list all the episodes with a link to the individual episode's page (even if the episode doesn't have its own page yet). There can be a small summary of the episode as well, but I don't think that's necessary. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want to delete the season pages, Peregrinefisher! If each episode can't have its own page, we should keep the season pages and link the episodes from this episode list page to the appropriate season page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luvtheheaven (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The plan is to move every bit of information from the season pages to this page. Nothing will be lost. If you look at List_of_Smallville_episodes#Season_1:_.282001-2002.29 and at Smallville (season 1) you will see that everything has been copied at least and some of it has been improved. Note the individual episode pages. - Peregrinefisher 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring Policy that I provided regarding TV episode pages and their associated pages. It doesn't matter what opinion is, not every episode deserves a page. Also, the votes were not for deleting the Season pages, please realize that your opinion is not 100% carried through the group. I think that a List of the Episodes 1-whatever is fine, but you are carrying information that is redundant fromm other articles. The DVD list is in the main page, which makes it irrelevant to the List page. You are not respecting the policy of TV pages (which is what it is, as per the Centralized Discussion which determines policy change). I think the List will be fine if it's just a list with the basics, and a link to the season pages for details on the Episodes. It does state explicitly in the CD that expanded plots are not for the episode pages. I have no problem with expanding the information in general per episode on the Seasonal pages. We can make both pages work to our benefit, but I think (and since the idea that most episode pages can't support themselves is clear in the CD) creating 100+ episode pages is unnecessary unless relevant. With a nice, condensed, clean plot summary (slightly smaller than what's on the season page) we can create enough space to include "relevant" trivia (as per Wikipedia:Trivia suggests) that manage to keep what everyone wants. It's clear that everyone wants to keep the List page, but it's clear that atleast 3 of the votes are not for deleting the Season pages. I think a nice compromise can be reach with regard to both articles, can you can be rest assured that votes for deletion on the season pages will go about the same as this one. Most people that edit those pages don't know of this page, as I didn't know of it until just recently (and I've been editing Smallville since I joined). Bignole
  • Comment: It looks like we have a strong consensus. - Peregrinefisher 19:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Season pages are deleted but their content preserved, the edit histories should be preserved somewhere for GFDL reasons. You could either a) copy the edit histories to the talk page of the episode list or b) make them redirects to the episode list. I would reccomend the latter, as it preserves the most information. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirecting is the way to go, for the above reason. - Peregrinefisher 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently, Peregrinefisher and I are discussing how we can make both pages their best, while preserving them (seeing as that is what most people want, and how it will turn out if a "merger" is proposed on the season pages ((i know those editors, they'll fight hard)). If anyone is curious about the details of the discussion see Peregrinefisher's talk page, and mine for the back and forth of it all. It's a little much to put here without bogging the page. Bignole 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This dispute does not seem to be about "This" article, but rather the concept of individual episode articles. The way I've seen it done on many articles is that you have a List of episodes article, then when that gets big you trim the list down to brief summaries, then link to something that goes into more detail about each episode (such as an episode article, season article, or story arc article). WP:LISTS states that lists can be articles in list format or navigation aids, or a little of both. Allowing the reader to view all the titles and air dates on one list is very much a navigational aid, and it can be an article in that not every reader wants to dive into that much detail just to identify an episode. I suggest not creating episode articles yet, instead change the links on the List of episodes article to point to article sections on the season articles. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation examples[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Adrian Lamo at IMDb
  2. ^ "Collateral Damage". Stargate SG-1.
  3. ^ "OpenBSD Project Goals". OpenBSD. 2005-10-12. Retrieved 2006-04-22.
  4. ^ Official Stargate SG-1 site. MGM. Visited June 8, 2006. Most of site requires Flash.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 the record, all but one of the keeps was a single-purpose account, and the other was the article's creator Deville (Talk) 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism[edit]

Not notable neologism, per WP:NEO. With a limited number of search engine hits, I doubt the accuracy of this article. Likely hoax, it is only used officially on a vegan-pro website, which, according to the article, was the coin-er of the term. Iolakana•T 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several references to "carnism" and the use of the word are found when this user searched.
Including but not limited to:
This article/presentation by author and director of Society and Animals Forum: http://www.vsh.org/lectures_August_04_2004.htm
This article by Joy appears in the academic Journal of Humanistic Psychology: http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/1/106?ck=nck
This article is one among many examples of the word "carnism" and its form "carnist" being used in context by the general public: http://ananimalfriendlylife.com/2006/03/fighting-animal-cruelty-eat-meat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn z (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The article was created by Melanie Joy, leading me to believe it is vanity, since the article claims that Melanie Joy is the creator of the term. One of the links provided above is also an article written by Melanie Joy, and another is a blog entry. This term is far too obscure to merit inclusion at this time. If in several years it becomes commonplace, then it will have a place, but Wikipedia shouldn't act as its springboard in common use- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The lack of widespread use outside of a small circle of animal rights activists also leads it to fail verifiablity. There have been no mentions in mainstream press regarding this neologism. --Wafulz 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI believe the inclusion of the blog comment was meant to show what the commenter called the word "being used in context by the general public" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.218.1 (talk • contribs) .
Comment So because the term is not used in the mainstream press it lacks viability as a way to describe a section of society? Do not delete." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by erin (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Yes, I agree. The original article was very biased and self-serving. I tried to balance the article and it was changed back to self-serving and judgemental form. Dane Sorensen Aug. 26, 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.84.96 (talk • contribs) Comment likely left by Dane Sorensen Dane Sorensen 17:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Dane C. Sorensen[reply]
  • Additional comment by Dane: Considering this term is so poorly concieved and was posted by the inventor with an incredible bias, I still think it should be deleted. Otherwise, the scholarship will go to hell in a hand basket on Wikipedia. I agree with the Captain - stir fry with olive oil and "deleat". Pun intended!
Comment While I agree the initial incarnation of the article wasn't entirely neutral, I would argue that your edit resulted in a negative spin. However, that's besides the point. Being biased is not grounds for deletion- violating specific policies or guidelines is. --Wafulz 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteThere has yet to be a term that denotes the eating preference of the dominant group that being meat-eaters. We have plenty of terms denoting the nondominant groups. Vegetarians are a far larger group than one may want to believe and a term like carnist allows vegetarians to identify those who eat meat...simple.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scina (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unsourced neologism. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The term is important and necessary. The term canist (carnism) is separate and distinct from carnivore and omnivore; it points to the ideology involved when once chooses to consume meat. No other word fits this unique description.Cyberrd 22:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Dina Aronson — Possible single purpose account: Cyberrd (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • "Do Not Delete" Despite the assertions of the initial poster, "carnism" is becoming increasingly widely used throughout the vegetarian community. Google includes citations from Seventh Day Adventist sites, as well as more mainstream vegan ones. Carnism also appears in the literature of several languages. And, finally, carnism is also an accepted term in the psychological literature. As for bias, Dr. Joy is entirely right in pointing out that carnism is biased in exactly the same way that all all ideological descriptors are biased. If the editors wouldn't delete "communism" or any other "-ism" for being biased, then how do they differentiate "carnism?" Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.111.217 (talk • contribs) .
  • "Do Not Delete" Even before Ms. Joy "coined" the word, it was in use in several contexts. She was simply the first to write down its definition, it seems. Deleting the entry appears to be much more of a "political" move than letting it be.Wikipedia is not censored. -CZ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.218.1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Consume it, marinated in deletion sauce and grilled over a verifiability fire The verifiability and notability of this article are nil. A couple of Seventh-Day Adventist sites and a few vegans do not a fully-fledged neologism (as opposed to protologism) make. In the meantime... yum... deletion sauce. Captainktainer * Talk 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Most of the google hits that I investigated do seem to have something to do with Ms. Joy, however her work seems widely covered and referenced within the animal rights/vegan community. I don't have any strong feelings either way about the "political" nature of the term -- the criteria should be whether or not it's notable enough for an entry. And in my opinion, it squeaks by (just). Dina 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, non-notable neologism. Rohirok 05:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article states that the term was coined in 2001. If true, this makes it a neologism. WP:NEO is then the relevant guideline, and it says that before we have articles on a neologism, we need reliable sources that are about the term, not just that use the term. For notability, we require that the reliable sources be independent. And, in order to be able to write an article adhering to the policy on having a neutral point of view, we require multiple reliable sources. Right now we have no sources. In the article history we have one source that is not independent and may or may not be reliable. We don't satisfy WP:NEO and thus won't be able to satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV, so the article needs to be deleted. GRBerry 05:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete As a sometimes carnist, what I read in the re-edit by the original author showed neither “an incredible bias” nor an “unbalanced viewpoint”. The “see also” section is evidence of this in that the links range from diet, ideologies and different types of consumption for comparison and contrast that relate to carnism to offer more expansive comprehension. With regard to the statement that “Widipedia is not a soapbox”, the article does not appear to be delivering any sort of speech, appeal or political tirade favoring either vegetarianism, carnism or the lifestyle choice of breatharians. It is simply clarifying a dominant belief system with regard to human consumption. There is no evidence of advocacy, self-promotion or advertising. Though carnism may not be widely known, it is discussed in the recently published book Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today. --Lexnay 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is yet another first-time edit. Rohirok 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am the author of the article. I understand and respect Wikipedia's policy about neologisms. I do, however, want to clear up the misconception that CaptainKtainer ("A couple of Seventh-Day Adventist sites and a few vegans") and others have that carnism has not appeared in sufficient professional sources. As well as having been discussed in two radio interviews and on various Web sites, the following are publications in which it has apperared, either in reference to the concept or fully delineating its construction (and yes, many--though not all--have been written by me):
  1. Cicerone, P. E. (2006). L'alternativa nel piatto. Mente & Cervello, 19(4), 44-49.
  2. Iacobbo, K. & Iacobbo, M. (2006). Vegetarians and vegans in America today. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  3. Joy, M. (2005). Humanistic psychology and animal rights: Reconsidering the boundaries of the humanistic ethic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(1), 106-130.
  4. Joy, M. (2004). Food for thought: Carnism and the psychology of eating meat. VegFamily, March: http://www.vegfamily.com/articles/carnism.htm.
  5. Joy, M. (2002). Toward a non-speciesist psychoethic. Society and Animals, 10(4), 457-458.
  6. Joy, M. (2001). From carnivore to carnist: Liberating the language of meat. Satya, 8(2), 26-27.

~mjoy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melanie Joy (talk • contribs) .

    • Comment: Why don't you add these sources to the article itself? That would help your case. All of these votes of "Do Not Delete" don't count for much (if anything), since they've come from new, single-purpose accounts, which hold little to no weight in voting according to Wikipedia policy. Rohirok 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, please help us by showing us which ones are about the term, as required by WP:NEO, instead of just using the term. At a first glance, the ones that would be most persuasive if about the term would be those by people other than you and those in academic journals (versus activist/lifestyle journals). For non-web sources, adding appropriate quotes to the article's talk page may help, but better yet would be to quote and cite in the article. GRBerry 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I believe this is clearly not what wiki intended per WP:NEO. "wiki is not a dictionary". The article is a primary sourced article by the author and coiner of the phrase, which thus counts as original research per WP:OR - it could easily have been "omnivorism". The author is attempting to introduce a political ideology out of something so universal, and automatic that it does not involve choice at all. The introduction of choice into the consumption of meat is, I suspect, with the agenda of eradicating the human consumption of meat. WP:NOT soapbox. "Carnism" scores 121 unique Ghits out of about 459. The saying does not appear to have gained widespread usage, and the originator herself would probably be excluded from wiki for not being sufficiently notable. 14 unique hits out of 26 for "Dr Melanie Joy", a name shared by another physician in the United Kingdom. No relevant Amzhits for Melanie Joy. Ohconfucius 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete: As a Universtiy Lecturer, I think this entry be left on wikipedia. I also think it should be refined to include more details of its definition and application. I will be teaching about this ideology in a course in the Fall - to a class of 300 students. There are significant mentions of carnism in acadmic literature (some are referenced above) and the coining of the term has had sinficiant impacts for discourse surrounding dominant ideologies and their unmarked nature. I have made reference to this in my own writings and will soon be presenting on carnism at an international conference. I would consider the limited number of search engine hits as relating to the the term be a recent creation and the number will increase rapidly in coming times. I strongly recommend this article not be deleted - i will help my student specifically, and i think it needs to be discussed mroe broadly. Deletion of this article will reinforce its necessity to be exposed as an unmarked ideology - as it will further illustrate its pervasiveness.
    • The above is another vote from a single-purpose account (This is 24.79.137.49's first edit). Rohirok 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Original biting comments have been deleted by their author. Rohirok 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Please do not bite the newbies. Just because this person does not have a grasp of Wikipedia deletion policy (did your first edit to Wikipedia reflect the full spectrum of Wikipedia policy?) does not mean that we should completely discard his/her opinions. Meatpuppetry isn't the fault of the meatpuppet... it's the fault of the meatpuppeteer. Yes, we warn new users that their votes might be discounted... but let's be gentle in pointing that out, and remember to address the opinions, not necessarily missteps in policy. Captainktainer * Talk 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have reliable sources for any of that? Which conference, and do they publish a list of papers containing the title of your work, which should contain the term carnism? Discounting Melanie Joy's writings, there are (possibly) two mentions. Aside from taking the word of single-purpose accounts, and yourself, there's no way of us knowing whether or not the only other two publications mentioned actually discuss the term at length; as such, Carnism does not meet the verifiability policy. We have a guideline for this sort of thing: WP:NEO. Could you please explain how this word meets the guidelines? Could you explain why Encyclopedia Britannica would choose to include this word? As it is, it seems as though you're asking us to include in the encyclopedia a word that "might" become big. I "might" end up being President of the Union oof the United States and Greater Canada in 2046, but there's no article on President (name deleted) on Wikipedia. Many possibilities exist within our quantum universe, but not every one of them is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Captainktainer * Talk 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Do Not Delete" I'm not too hip to editing Wikipedia, and only just (finally) registered to make this opinion more "official," but I do often use the site as a first point of reference when researching a new phrase or concept. I suppose now that I've finally registered, I will be more actively involved in contributing to the site, so I wouldn't consider this a single-purpose account. As someone who relies on Wikipedia frequently, I think it would be a shame if those who do come across the term "carnist" cannot look it up at Wikipedia due to some sort of bias against words that are not as commonly used by the media as, say, "flexitarian." As the voice behind An Animal-Friendly Life, a website with an international readership -- and the composer of an above-linked blog entry using the term -- I have found the word invaluable in describing a mindset that has otherwise not previously been sufficiently described. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to validate the "gatekeepers" or to inform the public? Removing this term from Wikipedia will make it less accurate, not more so. Updated 8/31 to include another recent blog reference Epskionline 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.
  • Delete - this doesn't seem encyclopaedic. No independent evidence that it is an ideology rather than just a word coined by one person. BlueValour 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't make any sense. The word carnism was coined specifically to describe an ideology. The evidence is all around that people choose to consume meat, and to defend that practice, even though they don't need to eat it. To choose to eat meat (carnism) is as ideological as the choice not to (vegetarianism or veganism), so how can you say that there is no evidence that carnism is not an ideology? That's the whole point of the word. There has not been an effective term 'til now that describes the doctrine of eating meat, and carnivore doesn't make that cut because it describes the dietary needs of an animal, rather than one's actual choices.Epskionline 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I eat meat; I also eat eggs, fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts. I do not choose to eat meat on 'ideological grounds' any more than I eat fruit on ideological grounds. People are by nature omnivores - examine your teeth. This word was coined on the misconception on why peple eat meat. BlueValour 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In reference to the IP address used (I am the 'University Lecturer') above as indicative of my 'first time' editing, i am currently on holiday and using a friends machine. I have been active in Open Source/GPL activities for many years. I have followed the rise of Wikipedia, and made (only a handful) of contributions over a long period of time (this is not a sinlge purpose account as charged). To actually address the issue at hand - which i think any discussion of this should focus on on - it embodies whether this term is useful, insightful and encyclopedic. It is a relativley new term which is directly reflected in its limited 'visible' usage. This is also sigificantly restrictetd to academia. These are not in any way valid reasons for its deletion. Most new concepts that have substantial merit come from the 'margins' of social engagement in acedmic discourse well before they began to have influence and be adtoped more broadly. Need i provide multitude examples of this? Marxism is just one - how many people no wear (albeit significantly misconstrued) a Che Guevara print T-shirt? When social critique pertans to the status quo or what is considered 'normal' in dominant discourse, the responses here are expected. They further illustrate the tenacity of such critiques. The recent comments by 'I eat meat' very clearly illustrate this. Further to this, not all academic papers are either published (i.e. conference proceedings, dissertations, etc. This is where most new concepts receive significant attention) or published in readily available sources outside academia. These again indicate how many positions for deletion included above are not consistent. Carnism is an ideology, if unmarked, just like sexism (and many others) is. At a time sixism was considered 'normal' and thus an ideology. I think i have made some clear points and hope people address the issue at hand with a reflexive critical awareness and not in a similar vein to some of those above. This issue is worthy of such critical consideration and, as such, very worthy of being included in Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.137.49 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 September 2006.

      • Comment You, a supporter of keeping the term on Wikipedia, have actually just given the strongest reason to delete so far. "It is a relatively new term which is directly reflected in its limited 'visible' usage. This is also sigificantly restrictetd to academia." According to our guideline on Neologisms (WP:NEO), a neologism of that sort is precisely the kind of word that does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. People wear a Che Guevara print T-shirt. That has entered the social zeitgeist. Assuming that you're actually correct about this term being encyclopedic, come back in ten years when it's reached that level of popularity. Come back when it has achieved substantial "critical consideration" that you think it deserves. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Melanie Joy and others to try to spread a vegetarian ideology, or to make some kind of point about social consciousness. Captainktainer * Talk 14:29, 2 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rascus Loses It[edit]

Contested prod for a non-notable, unreleased film by a non-notable company Nuttah68 17:57, 26 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. Deville (Talk) 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Blackhurst[edit]

autobiography JoJan 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:AUTO JoJan 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - autobiography that has insuffcient independent sourcing to stand up notability. BlueValour 03:46, 31 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. Punkmorten 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Frost[edit]

I removed the prod tag because I feel that, at the very least, the subject is sufficiently notable that he may meet the threshold. I have doubts about its deletion and feel that this should be brought to the community for discussion. He's been exhibited in high-profile galleries and the like. I'm currently leaning towards keep, as it's a fairly well-written article and I feel it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Captainktainer * Talk 18:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No independent references to assert notability, although I might be swayed by the exhibitions if references are provided. A lot of people can be featured in those sort of galleries. The JPStalk to me 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual art-related deletions. -- Captainktainer * Talk 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - the article doesn't really establish notability, but it is well written and sourced, and there isn't to much for non-notability either.--ZayZayEM 10:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a close call but nothing that I can get a grip on for notability. No awards, quality independent reviews or particularly major exhibitions. BlueValour 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, as mentioned above, a borderline case. The article can always be recreated later if M. Frost attains more notability, however. Lankiveil 07:23, 31 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. Punkmorten 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Paashaus[edit]

I am sure Daniel Paashaus is an interesting and accomplished photographer, and one day may merit an article. However, at the moment there are no outstanding achievements cited, apart from artist in residence at Millersville University for 2005-2006. I don't think this alone is sufficient for inclusion. Tyrenius 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a WP:BLP comments should display a suitable sensitivity. Thank you. Tyrenius 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. --Tyrenius 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:BIO. -- Visviva 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will personally delete the article. I think it's unfortunate that certain people on Wikipedia feel the need to bully others' articles. I notice you have a few articles proposed for deletion, and I can't say I agree with any of your decisions. I have written a good deal for Wikipedia, and I don't think I will continue to do so. The "wiki" spirit of the whole thing is really overthrown when people create profiles displaying their contributions and, to make things worse, feel they can singlehandedly (and arbitrarily) decide whether something is worthy of inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.17.123 (talk • contribs) .

User's 2nd contribution using this IP

  • You can't delete it unless you are an admin. Please refrain from personal attacks (you can get blocked). Nobody is bullying anything. If you're talking to me, I only have one other article proposed for deletion. Well, it's commonly accepted practice here for user pages to display contributions. There is no single-handed and arbitrary deletion here: this is a debate which is open to all users, yourself included to have a mature evaluation. The article does not cite anything particularly significant about this person, so why should we include an article on them? If there are sigificant things which are verifiable, you are welcome to add them to the article, and to let us know that you have done so. Otherwise, you can say here what merits this person being in an encyclopedia. Tyrenius 07:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Checking Google there is little in the way of independent reviews to stand up notability. I have to say that I like his work but this entry has come too soon. He should come back when he can cite some awards or quality independent reviews. BlueValour 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mad Jack 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:43, 3 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publitiser[edit]

Contested prod (with prod2). Non-notable neologism without a single google hit. Geoffrey Spear 18:25, 26 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. —Xyrael / 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ian McDiarmid's stage credits[edit]

Unnecessary list. Most of the data on the list is copied from broadway.com. Author contends that he has also added data from other sources, however, these additions are minimal, and I still believe that it is out of place in an encyclopedia. A link to the broadway.com page on the main article would suffice Robotforaday 18:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, anything that should be said can be done so at Ian McDiarmid. No need to merge, since anyone can just as easily recreate any selected and necessary content there, cite Broadway.com, and not violate the GFDL. --Kinu t/c 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This list is integral to the Ian McDiarmid article. I put it in it's own article because his screen credits are too numerous to list on his article. If you can link it to broadway.com and make the link start up right at Stage Credits (so that reader's don't have to work to find the list) by all means go ahead. However, if you can't do that, I feel that it should stay. b_cubed 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Ian McDiarmid. The list is not so long that it can't remain in the actor's article. Resolute 03:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Take a select few and merge those into the article and then delete the rest. Whispering(talk/c) 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nohing on the McDiarmud Talk page that this split has been discussed. Having said, I think that the editor can rescue any notable appearances which, together with sources on the article page, is enough. BlueValour 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ian McDiarmid. Zaxem 05:42, 3 September 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afiq[edit]

Contested speedy bio. A vanity page with a couple of 'facts' thrown in as an attempt to disguise the article Nuttah68 18:41, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gentry[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and the google test. Would consider recreation if contestant becomes notable on the show (ie. first or second place). In comparision: Kathy Vavarick-O'Brien has been on two Survivor seasons and doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Adam Gentry has not even been shown on Survivor yet, has little past, and already has a page. The page is also completely uncited.TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Has no notability. Currently is a contestant on a reality tv show and no relevant information has been given about himself.
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged removed (before I could even get to it, actually; good on ya, NawlinWiki!), definitely not a candidate under A7. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of the article is indeed a contestant in the upcoming season of this popular television show. The article already exists... Since it exists already, is causing no harm it should stay as the show starts in two weeks. By deleting the article we're only temporarily saving electrons. The electron saving isn't worth undoing already existing work. See the Wiki philosophy of Inclusionism --AStanhope 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the Speedy Delete tag while this deletion discussion is pending. --AStanhope 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find AStanhope's argument convincing. Saying someone might become notable isn't sufficient cause. Also, as stated, this person does not currently pass the significance test, and the article is completely unsourced. Badbilltucker 19:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not even get within spitting distance of being a notable person/celebrity. Tarc 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Speaks for itself. Ppoi307 16:48, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Edge[edit]

Working with famous bands doesn't make him notable. 11 Ghits for "Matthew Edge" recording engineer. Delete as nn studio tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbrianuk (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Irongargoyle 19:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an engineer with a history of contributing to the work of successful bands, and who has a particular reputation within the music community in Liverpool. I understand that the google search that Djibrianuk did yielded very little ("Matthew Edge" Engineer brings back a bit more, but if you actually look at the links for that search, you'll see that his credits with the bands mentioned are indeed verifiable. This guy has worked with most of the important current bands from Liverpool- and worked with in this contextdoesn't just mean putting on the kettle in this context, it means actually sitting at the mixing desk and making sure the products come up to scratch. Robotforaday 22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing notable about the subject, and none asserted. Ohconfucius 07:02, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Magazine[edit]

  • Keep it I saw this page before a few days, so i changed the link for the Quantum (disambiguation) and i was thinking of rewriting the article. I have never heard of this... "new" Quantum Magazine, but i can tell you for sure that this magazine existed and it was one of the most serious on physics and science. Sadly, it stopped being published anymore. User:Nikolas Karalis
  • del. Nonexisting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Its official website is simply ridiculous: all links lead to various search engine results. `'mikka (t) 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to its name, it may or may not ever exist. Per mikka, WP:NOT a crystal ball. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I have a feeling it's a joke about the uncertainty principle. --Wafulz 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What is this? Camouflaged linkspam? Leibniz 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was another magazine by this name published from 1990 to 2001, but there doesn't appear to be any connection. Gazpacho 09:11, 27 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. Each article will have to be considered on their own merits. A group nomination for AfD could be performed but having one article deleted doesn't automatically mean that the others are, especially since the author hasn't been informed of their prospective deletion.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESP LTD B-155[edit]

I'm not sure on the correct way forward here. User:QelDroma06 has created over 100 articles, contribs, most of which are similar to this. Wikipedia is not here to act as a catalogue of ESP products and unless something makes a particular model notable all should be deleted. Nuttah68 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Information should appear on the main ESP page, or in summary form on a product listing subpage. Espresso Addict 19:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all Wikipedia is not a catalog nor an indiscriminate source of information. BigE1977 20:15, 26 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 CSD G6 - housekeeping, an AfD discussion was closed but closing admin overlooked the deletion of a nominated article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edspice[edit]

This is a relisting. The page was originally part of a joint Afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDWinXP. The admin who closed that debate appears to have overlooked this article Nuttah68 19:08, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenopets[edit]

Contested prod. A 'how to' spam Nuttah68 19:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to fail WP:WEB. Alexa rank: 296,190. --Kinu t/c 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I think it probably fails WP:WEB, but it might be salvageable with some good references that speak to its notability. It gets a fair number of google hits, but none that really speak to notability. Irongargoyle 19:41, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysartes[edit]

This is an article written about the Dysartes website by one of the founders of said website (who is referenced in the article). Not only is that methodology questionable, the website is no more notable than any other 40K fansite or community. Through reading the article, the article serves only to advertise a gaming club, get some people's handles out to the public (also advertising) and advertise a store website. All of these are prohibited by WP policy. MSJapan 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and send it to the warp to be eaten by the chaos gods. I'm a member of this fandom, and I even I recognize it as blatant NN spamcruft. Irongargoyle 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, delete away I say. Localzuk (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non notable, advertising --Pak21 17:42, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistral home textiles[edit]

Tagged as advert for three weeks with. Article appears to be the same info in a number of languages. Article not edited since creation. Nuttah68 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, zero Google hits, fails WP:V, does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Probably a copyvio of something; should be tagged if confirmed. --Kinu t/c 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This fails WP:V, and WP:CORP. Daniel's page ☎ 01:16, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secured email[edit]

Spam. Offers no more than cut and paste from the website it links to Nuttah68 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Alexa ranking of about one million, give or take. A Google search of "Secured email" brings up thousands of hits, but most of them are unrelated because it's a common phrase. The article doesn't meet criteria set out in WP:WEB or WP:CORP, and has no independent sources to help it pass WP:V. The author has only made edits related to this article, or praising/advertising the service provided by the company on other articles, thus violating WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Also, there are only 13 unique links to the site, most of which are from within the site itself. --Wafulz 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons given by Wafulz. GregorB 20:31, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamora Kizamazu[edit]

Yet another Naruto fan character. Possible WP:OR violation, definite fancruft. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, totally OR. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (also, I snickered at the creator's history.) Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fan-created character that is not part of Naruto (which probably qualifies it as a hoax). The Japanese hiragana still reads Kakashi Hatake, I thought that was funny. ColourBurst 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Jap9c 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX. And even if this is suppose to be a fanfic character, it doesn't pass WP:FICT either. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I praise the attempt, it's just wishfull thinking. Add on to that the fact that it rambles on at parts, delves into an explanation of a love triange, manages to include the character in pretty much every part of the series without any explanation as to why, etc. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:39, 28 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 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Moya[edit]

Not a notable person. No assertions are made about importance, and some exploratory research indicates that there are none to make. To give a general idea: google hits for "gustavo moya": 571, many of which appear to be about different people. Hits for gumoz (an alias given in the article): 479, many of which are forum pages. Hits for ixaya gustavo (Ixaya is the open source community mentioned in the article): 13. I understand that Google isn't the last word on notability, but I think it's a reasonably admissible metric for gauging the notability of someone who is reportedly heavily involved in technology. Delete. --Moe Aboulkheir 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please note that of the three Keep votes, 1 is from an unregistered user, and the other two are by registered users who registered for the specific purpose of voting on this nomination (i.e. they have no other edits). Additionally, one is unsigned. What to do about this? --Moe Aboulkheir 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he loves to do things for the community is not the issue here. My grandmother loves to do things for the community. --Moe Aboulkheir 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see much evidence of notability. The article's significant contributor(s) have not made any other contributions to Wikipedia; smells strongly of vanity. --Piet Delport 15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of actually /achieving/ anything notable. BlueValour 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 21:09, 31 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin's Syndrome[edit]

Neologism with no usage in published literature. This idiosyncratic use is limited to transgender advocacy websites. In addition, Benjamin Syndrome is already used to classify another condition: Hypochromic anemia with mental retardation and various craniofacial and other anomalies. Jokestress 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - the article contradicts its own reference [42] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'Benjamin's syndrome' gives no Medline hits, 'Benjamin syndrome' gives 409 hits a quick skim of the first few pages of which suggests relate to the other condition. Espresso Addict 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Benjamin's syndrome is already mentioned in the articles on transsexualism and gender identity disorder. Basically, it's just another model of gender dysphoria. It has been suggested that an article on Taxonomy of transsexualism be written, and information on this model could be placed there. It also seems like this article was written with the intent of POV pushing. Andrea Parton 14:41, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Epstein[edit]

weak delete - I PROD'd it a couple of times but kept being removed by 'lorne epstein' who I assume is the same person as the article is about. Seems to generate about 30 or so unique google references. no real sign of notability but I can be convinced otherwise. Charlesknight 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Charlesknight weak delete --Alex talk here 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO. There's no shortage of job advisors around nowadays. Lastly, you can only prod an article once, anyone can remove the tag and you'll have to send it to AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! This is Lorne. I am the person who the article is written about and recently made a few edits since the copy was a bit off. Can you let my posting live? I posted it a while back and would appreciate it if you let it stay. You can reach me (Lorne Epstein) at Lorne@YourehiredRadio.com. To refute your point. The reason I am doing what I am doing is that there is a dirth of folks to champion people having careers they love and jobs that are satisfying.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LorneEpstein (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising your services, Mr. Epstein. This is an encyclopedia. Powers T 14:29, 27 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 Transwiki to Wikibooks. Now tagged with {{Move to Wikibooks}}.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WordPerfect 12[edit]

This article is simply a tutorial about wordperfect keyboard shortcuts and contains no encyclopedic information about the software. As per WP:NOT, it should be transwiki'ed or deleted. BigE1977 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki - although looks more like a review than a tutorial. GregorB 20:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki sounds good. Gazpacho 09:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki but a quick article left in the encyclopedia section would be good too - Blood red sandman 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT unless someone tells me where this will be transwikied to. Andy Saunders 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikibooks, of course. Gazpacho 21:14, 27 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 redirect, see final comment. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Stargate SG-1[edit]

Rejected as a speedy non notable group of people. Non notable campaign and group of people Nuttah68 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as {{nocontent}}. It's a one sentence article, followed by 20 external links, which, for me, easily qualifies under CSD A3. -- Kicking222 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider speedy under A3, but I believe it might be possible for a decent article to be formed either at this location, or merged with another article. So I'm not sure if this counts as a keep !vote or not, but certainly don't speedy. Petros471 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would my "speedy delete" vote count as a "keep" vote? Did my Kerry vote count for Bush? (Well, knowing Bush's seediness, maybe it did.) No, my speedy delete is a speedy delete; if it can't be speedily deleted, it should just be deleted (but I have no idea why, as other people have pointed out, it couldn't be speedied under A7 or A3). -- Kicking222 12:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to my comment being a 'keep' (or otherwise), not yours. Of course you meant you wanted the article deleted. I was disagreeing that it should be speedy deleted. In case the admin closing this decides to vote count I'm recommending do not delete and redirect to Stargate SG-1. Petros471 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Kicking222. TJ Spyke 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Stargate SG-1 whatever is not there already. Irongargoyle 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Stargate SG-1. --Metropolitan90 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the speedy tag, as I don't want to overrule the previous admin, and also the fact that there are other users who don't want it speedied (see above) seems to me to mean it shouldn't be. Certainly it will end up deleted, but if there's anything that should in fact be merged, letting it go through AfD will allow that to happen. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no content and not notable anyway. Shows get cancelled, guys. Gazpacho 09:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is a borderline blog. Basically, the only encyclopedic feature of the article is that it states there is a "movement" to save the series. Little sources that would analyse and quantify the "movement", though, aside of having links to some random forum threads and having a few links to sites that kind of sprung up last week, just to show that this nebulous "movement" does exist. And on top of that, links to articles in chronological format... ouch! This does warrant a mention in Stargate SG-1, but there's little that can be merged from this article. This is a good example of how not to link to external sites... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reconsidering, looking at what's already at the Stargate SG-1 article, and the further votes, I've decided to go ahead and speedy end this. You're right, there's really nothing that needs merging. I'm sure any show has fans trying to stop it from being cancelled, and that's the only fact not already at the target page. There is little enough content to speedy delete, but I'm going to make it a redirect to hopefully avoid recreation, and on the off chance anyone does want the history extant to merge something. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:46, 27 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 due to multiple keep votes from a reasonably new editor. —Xyrael / 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ayres[edit]

Non-notable poet, author, and film producer whose self-published books have Amazon sales ranks in the millions. No reliable sources given or likely to be found. Delete --Huon 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate Ayres' publication, Van Gogh's Ear: Best World Poetry & Prose, which gives less than 10 Google hits, and his company, French Connection Films, which fails WP:CORP, both by the same author. The combination gives an impression of advertisement and/or vanity. --Huon 20:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh's Ear: Best World Poetry & Prose[edit]

  • Keep Van Gogh's Ear. Given the contributors' list claimed, Van Gogh's Ear seems a potentially notable small-press publication. No opinion on the other two. Espresso Addict 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh's Ear should stay. Over 100 Van Gogh's Ear: Best World Poetry & Prose Google hits came up on a more thorough search. The contributors' list does prove that Van Gogh's Ear is an important publication. --Jimmy Russell 22:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. We have no proof that this laundry list of celebrities isn't a hoax, or at least an exaggeration. Besides, calling them "contributors" is disingenuous: I don't believe that Marilyn Monroe, Charles Manson, James Dean or the Marquis DeSade knowingly contributed to this zine. You'd be surprised how easy it is for any low-budget zine to get permission to run excerpts of writings by famous authors. wikipediatrix 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof can be made to keep Van Gogh's Ear. The list of celebrities is accurate, and not at all an exaggeration. Contact the estates of Keith Haring, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, and the estates of others listed who are no longer living and they will provide proof. Same for the living, who are 97% of the contributors. Charles Manson's letter was sent from prison, addressed to Van Gogh's Ear, and a scan of it appears in the book to prove its validity. Van Gogh's Ear is a respected anthology. It is distributed by major distributors in the United States, Canada, Europe, South Africa, and Australia. I've taken the time to research the facts. Jimmy Russell 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jimmy Russell, whose only contributions have been to AfDs about his articles/to the articles themselves, has also created Van Gogh's Ear. For now, I abstain. --Wafulz 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation. I am new at Wikipedia and had initially made a mistake in putting "Best World Poetry & Prose" as part of the Van Gogh's Ear title. Upon learning my mistake I couldn't figure out how to correct the title right away, so just did a new page with the correct title. Could I have counted on someone else to have corrected the title? I have put the AfD notice with this link on the correct page for Van Gogh's Ear. I guess I did a better job with my page for Steve Algozino. --Jimmy Russell 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources provided for establishment of notability or verifiability. Twenty-eight google hits once all the irrelevant, non-related, stuff is filtered out. Non-Notable Brian 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete along with a number of other non-notable poetry anthologies still uncontested on Wikipedia that are of lesser importance, with less than 10 Google hits, neither reviews nor honors. Research and compare. --Jimmy Russell 16:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both all authors and books are notable --Kitia 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, that's not what the guidelines say. For authors it says "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" and there's no evidence of that here. See also Wikipedia:Notability (books) Brian 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Question: What about the received honors and reviews of the notable poets/authors published in a collection? Don't they count? --Jimmy Russell 17:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. wikipediatrix 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that Wikipedia judges collections by the merits of the poets and authors they contain instead of the other way around. And Van Gogh's Ear does have more importance than some of the other poetry anthologies already approved on Wikipedia. References, book reviews, honors, etc. will soon be posted. --Jimmy Russell 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, uh, why did you vote "Delete" above?? And why did you blank out the French Connection Films article? [43] Blanking out an article, even if it's one you created, constitutes vandalism. wikipediatrix 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of opinion: The three articles I nominated developed quite differently.
  1. Ian Ayres by now is about another Ian Ayres who is unrelated to the poet (and, to me, looks notable enough). Thus, speedy keep seems to be the way to go.
  2. French Connection Films has been blanked by the author and sole contributor. To me, that's not vandalism; rather, it can be speedy deleted by criterion G7: Author's request.
  3. Van Gogh's Ear (Van Gogh's Ear: Best World Poetry & Prose was turned into a redirect) by now seems to be in slightly above-average shape for anthologies of modern poetry. It could, of course, do with some more sources, but they may be found. Since at least some of the contributions are originally published in Van Gogh's Ear (and not just reprints), I'll change my opinion on this one to weak keep. --Huon 09:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.
  • Delete Van Gogh's Ear - notability not demonstrated. BlueValour 04:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Ayres is a problem. We have an article on a poet, an AfD, and within 24 hours, with no explanation, a detailed article on another Ian Ayres appears. What's going on? Certainly the old Ian Ayres needs deleting from the history while the new one does seem notable; so -
  • Delete Old Ian Ayres from history.
  • Keep New Ian Ayres. BlueValour 04:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Van Gogh's Ear - notability being demonstrated. Jimmy Russell 05:18, 31 August 2006
Um, this is the third or fourth time you have "voted". wikipediatrix 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish some of the other anthologies already accepted on Wikipedia would be compared. It's obvious Van Gogh's Ear belongs as much as--if not more than--they do. And notability is being demonstrated. Many more references and citations are available. Jimmy Russell 19:48, 31 August 2006
  • WTF. Article on Ian Ayres is about an economist, not a poet. What is going on here? Herostratus
As you might have seen in the history (or by reading my comment above), Ian Ayres was rewritten entirely since being nominated for deletion. --Huon 18:25, 4 September 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Special Forces[edit]

Non-notable game clan. Article apparently written by one of its members. GregorB 20:13, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh platter[edit]

Delete what appears to be a neologism. Mindmatrix 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ewww... Delete. Not that that's a criterion for deletion, but WP:NEO is, and I wish I would have known what this was before doing a search and finding out there was a website called www.turdwords.com... ewww... I was thinking it was some kind of local burger or something... Irongargoyle 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, grossed out keep My google readings seem to indicate that this isn't WP:NFT, which these sort of neologisms often seem to be. I think it's on the level of Donkey Punch and Dirty Sanchez ie. mysoginistic and kind of juvenile, but nonetheless relevant to our (often mysoginistic and kind of juvenile) culture. However, I won't kick a bit if the consensus is for delete. Dina 22:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I definitely see your point, but Donkey Punch gets 200,000 hits, Dirty Sanchez gets over 1,500,000 and Pittsburgh platter gets barely over 1,000. It's never a good sign when your first google result is the urban dictionary. Irongargoyle 00:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have a high bar for fringe sexual slang terms. Powers T 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per gargoyle. Wickethewok 14:32, 28 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, so keeping as a default, but I think no precedent should be read from this --- Deville (Talk) 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Daniel[edit]

Non-notable person; article is nearly speedy-able for failing to assert notability, but not quite. At any rate, there's no indication that this person meets the WP:BIO criteria. Further, the author's sole edits are here, which makes this look like WP:VANITY. Valrith 21:10, 26 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather Part 4[edit]

This article is a promotional piece for a petition for an non-existent movie. Hamiltonian 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, nothing more than a petition. Also, internet petitions almost never work.. TJ Spyke 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete, "petition" is not a CSD criteria. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete not encyclopedic, POV, WP:NOT, etc etc . Spearhead 21:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete I'm not sure what speedy criteria would fit this, but as far as I'm concerned, In most cases if a movie and doesn't have an IMDB entry, it doesn't exist (let alone be notable for wikipedia). Irongargoyle 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a crystal ball. In this case, the article admits that the movie does not exist, just that some fan wants such a movie to be made. --Metropolitan90 00:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 09:17, 27 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. Punkmorten 10:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSU Solarcar Racing Team[edit]

This is a student project in Kansas State University. Its highest placing was fifth in the American Solar Challenge. In the List of solar car teams, there are several cars that are featured as articles, but most of them have top-place or second place finishes in their respective races (Nuna, for example, has three consecutive top place finishes in the World Solar Challenge). The article is also unsourced with reliable sources. If someone can show me how this meets notability guidelines, I'll reconsider. ColourBurst 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dina 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:34, 3 September 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. Deville (Talk) 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidsreads.com[edit]

spam. Coca666 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Coca666 seems to be a single purpose account. 95,000 google hits for kidsreads.com. Irongargoyle 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether the nominator is a {{SPA}}{{spa}}, the article currently has nothing that asserts notability per WP:WEB. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A ten year old website with lots of google hits. I agree that the article needs work though. Dina 22:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes it is a short article and yes it is about about a website and yes most websites are deleted but this is one of the more notable ones. Just do a Google search. Kitia 22:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several google queries with kidsread, and an alexa ranking.
  • Keep The article undoubtedly needs work to help establish the notability it has received from libraries and educators across the U.S. ju66l3r 23:27, 26 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. Please defer merge discussion to article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Rhine[edit]

There's nothing in this article to suggest notability outside of Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2006 August 26. True, probably NN outside of BB, but has plenty of ghits, some of them semi-respectable news/entertainment sources. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one outside of Big Brother knows who this [personal attack removed] is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.99.182 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per myself above. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge: A recent AfD for Drew Daniel (winner of a BB season) resulted in Merge/Redirect pertinent info with the episode article. Consensus was that seperate contestants on the show without their own WP:BIO notability (aside from appearing on the show) don't warrant seperate articles. I don't see why the same logic can't apply here. ju66l3r 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Person is notable for repeat involvement in hit show. Nomination reason is illogical. Basically nom is saying "Subject is not notable for anything except what they're notable for". --Rob 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that all this person has done is appeared in a reality television show, and according to the article, not much else. Appearing on Big Brother doesn't automatically make a person worthy of having an article. talk to JD wants e-mail 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok JD you're right lets get rid of every single Reality contestant who has only done Reality TV. NOT that is stupid. Kaysar from Big Brother 6 should have his on article because he was one of the major players in that game --Kevmicester2000 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that either. This guy, James Rhine, has an article. In that article is only information about his time in the Big Brother House. This information should be where it belongs - on the article of the season or seasons that he took part in. The article isn't meant to be about his time in the Big Brother House, it's meant to be about him; and when you take away the Big Brother information, there's nothing left to suggest that he is notable enough to have his own article. talk to JD wants e-mail 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically copied from the List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7) article. He hasn't done anything unique that people know him for outside of the house. The article also goes against WP:BIGBRO guidelines about housemate articles. Geoking66 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you put it like that I agree with you I'm sorry about my rant --Kevmicester2000 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is at least as notable as Josh Logan who survived deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Logan. Logan is from Rock Star: Supernova, while this subject is from 2 seasons of Big Brother, which is a more notable (based on longevity and ratings and global duplication) series. The article may meed some work, but notability should not be in question. --After Midnight 0001 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge The information in this article can be found in the Big Brother pages. A-Supreme 03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per After Midnight, James is at least as notable as Josh Logan. He's appeared on not just one but two seasons of a popular television show. The article on him certainly could be expanded more with additional information about his biography or other activites, but certainly that's no reason to delete it. --Benjaminx 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known and notable in media and general population of his region. Unitedroad 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Big Brother narratives involves many people, and it's best to keep it on in a coherent place: the main article for that series. The JPStalk to me 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - For those who suggest Delete/Redirect/Merge and that the information should go on the "page for the show". This is an unique case where the individual appears in 2 seasons as a contestant, so would you duplicate the information on both the Season 6 and the Season 7 pages? That would seem to get things out of synch to me. How would you suggest to resolve? --After Midnight 0001 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would set this page as a redirect to the article of the first series the guy appeared in, then put a note or something in his section of that article saying he was also in Big Brother 7: All-Stars, and link it to that article. talk to JD wants e-mail 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But then what would you put in his article? If it's in the Big Brother series page, it surely should contain information about his actions in the house. If it's only going in one page though, it would be really wierd to see information about Big Brother 7 on the Big Brother 6 page or vice-versa. Since he's appeared on two different seasons of a popular show, I think it's important for him to have his own article. --Benjaminx 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is useless. There is a subsection for James on both series six and series seven's pages. Geoking66 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's been on Big Brother for two seasons. bbx 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily Deleted as a non-notable biography. 82.33.48.5 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Woods[edit]

Contested prod for porn star who has only appeared in two films. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). --Allen3 talk 22:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Performing in two porn films (and to date, he's only made two) does not make a worthy candidate for an article in an encyclopedia. Lest someone start the argument that he was the cover model of one and is a "Falcon Studios Exclusive"; he was the cover model of a film about actors with big cocks. He has one. When he's been a Falcon Exclusive for a few more films, then write an article. His husband, Pierre Fitch, can't make up his mind—in an interview he states that he's left Falcon (after five films); his website still describes him as a "Falcon Exclusive".—Chidom talk  07:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:11, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viridian villages[edit]

Non-notable organization with no sources and reads like advertisement; only Ghit for "Viridian Villages" is this article. Article starter has also created a number of db-bio and other AfD nominees. May even be a hoax (check the article discussion page for the response to prod (which was deleted). ju66l3r 22:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - smells strongly of hoaxery - the "Secretary of Research" Zachary Malter had an article created by the same editor which said he was a school kid, read like a first blog entry and has probably already been speedied by now. Same editor created an article on Garreth dottin (also probably speedied by now) claiming him to be the president of Viridian Villages, but only mentioning in the article his online gaming habits. Same editor also made an article on Peanut the dog, a page apparently attempting to assert the notability of his pet Shih-tzu... ~Matticus TC 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & Matticus --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. This looks like a local pro-environment group started by some youngsters. Good intentions, but no notability for Wikipedia. Powers T 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 03:28, 27 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 per DRV.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWetWare[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through this AfD in light of new evidence. Please consult the DRV for this evidence before commenting here. This matter is submitted for new consideration to AfD. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per DRV. 1ne 23:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DRV. Skosuri 23:10, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miho Iwata[edit]

Poorly written article, pages are in other languages. Notability asserted, but WP:V is a problem. Gets 30K Google hits, 14K of those in English. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Jeez, the article needs work and I don't recognize most of the credits, but she seems to have an international reputation and a solid body of work -- I googled some of her collaborators and the galleries she's worked at and there were some solid numbers of google hits (many in Polish unfortunately). I say keep, as a stab at countering WP:BIAS, give it a wikify tag and I promise to work on it. Maybe I can try to find a Polish-speaking wikipedian to give me a hand sorting out the mess. Dina 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Dina's willingness to clean it up. A glance at the source indicates it's not as badly formatted as it appears; it's just not wikified. Powers T 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gave it some love. It still has some challenges, but it's shaped up a bit. Some of the poking around I had to do to figure out has given me the impression that the artist is notable enough, though not incredibly famous or anything. Dina 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to changes and love from Dina. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 29 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. —Xyrael / 07:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koumpounophobia[edit]

Listing per DRV. Article was previously deleted as an apparent hoax, but that's not covered by CSD. Abstain. 1ne 23:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:1ne has insisted that his brief nomination remain. For the aid of commenters, here is my remark posted a minute later which gives the facts of the case:
This article was previously speedy deleted as an "apparent hoax". Technically, such a deletion is outside of the scope of the WP:CSDs. A (very sparse) DRV consensus overturned this deletion, holding that AfD should properly determine whether the article is a hoax, especially since sources are given. This matter is submitted to AfD for consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have my doubts that koumpounophobia is an established term for button phobia, but the phenomenon itself seems to exist, per various news sources. (see talk page). I can't find any scientific sources though, so I'm not sure if news coverage alone makes this one encyclopedic. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a dicdef, and WP:NOT a dictionary. Whether it's a hoax or not seems to be irrelevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The actual dicdef is very simple and doesn't go into specifics like this encyclopedia article does. Powers T 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless we can source it the dicdef might have to go (and this article be moved to "button phobia"). ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable. That someone wrote that they feared buttons in cildhood is not an encyclopedic info. My granny was afraid of a TV set. So what thios would be in Greek? `'mikka (t) 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I am very afraid of belly buttons. And I know some other people fear them too: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006020708432
  • Delete. No such word in any disctionary or medical source. only internet. Mukadderat 16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to Wictionary as it appears to be a real enough term, but has little likely potential for expansion beyond the current article, which is just a DicDef. Herostratus 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please allow me to respectfully disagree. Yes, in hits the google. But can you vouch that the word is not a joke? What's it etimology? Just like wikipedia, Wiktionary is not supposed to be a garbage collector. `'mikka (t) 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing more then a dictionary definition.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:01, 4 September 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 by DakotaKahn. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about sex[edit]

Seems to have been some confusion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs about sex where this was added to the AFD early on, received a few merge's and wasn't deleted at the end. To avoid confusion I'm relisting — "Unmaintainable list that violates WP:NOT". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about sex. Thanks/wangi 23:16, 26 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 Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeineMutter[edit]

  • A promotion of a new user telling how they got their user name. Please delete. Georgia guy 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, more likely a new user confused about how WP works. I posted a comment on his/her talk page suggesting that they move this content to their userpage. After that Delete Dina 23:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. Powers T 01:03, 27 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.

bubblehash AfD moved to Aug 27[edit]

I apologize, I created two AfD's (one for Bubble Hash, one for bubblehash, I just fixed it but it's in Aug 27. Vpoko 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon (band)[edit]

This article only escapes speedy deletion because the article claims some notability. But that claim is not sufficient. No released CD, no national exposure. Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 26 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.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Wars[edit]

This page sounds WAY too much like a game guide. Any useful information should be saved in the minigames article. Hemhem20X6 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant info and redirect to RuneScape RuneScape mini-games. Powers T 01:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this fails WP:NOT based on this sentence: Spies are normally the lower level players who cannot make a difference, or simply fanatical Zamorakians or Saradominists. That's not encyclopediac, and even if it were destined for a merge it would need EXTREME overhaul on a lot of the fancruft. To me, it seems as if it's hopelessly fancrufty (after all, it is a wiki about ONE minigame in an MMORPG... Makoto 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into RuneScape mini-games, per nom. Castle Wars is one of the more popular minigames, and deserves a more extended coverage in the minigames article than it has already. This article seems to have been crufted up somewhat less than some of the others, but I am skeptical about whether an individual minigame deserves an article, although it is not as bad an idea for an article as Shield of Arrav. I believe a few people have been talking about merging anyway. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOT, a game guide. wikipediatrix 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Almost the entire article is cruft apart from the first paragraph or two - if anyone wishes to save more of the article they can copy and paste or rewrite into the mini-games article. I had intended to do something with this article but haven't had the time, but now I'm taking out anything which IMO is worth keeping and porting it over. Interested parties, please take a look at the RuneScape mini-games article, but I reckon the job will already be done by the time an admin makes a judgement on this. QuagmireDog 23:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as the relevant material has now been merged into the mini-games article (I struck through my own previous vote). Fine tuning the contributors' work now contained in the MG article will result in a much better product than continuing to do the crufty-pokey here. QuagmireDog 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could I persuade you to vote for a redirect, then? Powers T 12:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, especially since it has already effectively been done. You guys are ripping my heart out with the infernal AfD's. I have worked hard on trying to keep the crap out of this and other articles, only to see them up for deletion what seems like every week or so. I am almost beginning to see it as a personal vendetta against every article I have worked on, but that would be just a little paranoid, and I am not. Xela Yrag 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry if I offended you (or will), but I really don't see the point in having this article. I do play RuneScape, but I find articles like this are not good for Wikipedia. It is a game guide, and is full of opinionated statements too.Hemhem20X6 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, as per nom. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary. --Richard 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary, non-notable, game guide, etc.--Edtalk c E 23:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for fancruft and game guides. One example being the Tools section - the fancruft notice on the talk page clearly states that naming and giving descriptions of items is not allowed. Audacious One 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Don't really mind that much either way, but I think this should be deleted as a good percentage of it is gamecruft. J.J.Sagnella 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, RuneScape mini-games#Castle Wars has more than enough info. This page is pure cruft. GarrettTalk 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But seriously trim down some of the info. Either that, or trim off much of RuneScape mini-games#Castle Wars and link it to here. Castle Wars is one of the more well-known mini-games and probably warrants a little more info than other mini-games.Eruan 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentEven if it is major, about 99% of the info goes against WP:NOT, as a game guide. The 1% has already been included in RuneScape mini-games#Castle Wars.Hemhem20X6 23:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Castle Wars section of RuneScape mini-games -is- this page, with a different opener and the POVcruftGameGuide part of this article removed. When I took the rest of the information over to mini-games, I literally copied and pasted everything beneath the opener and above the 'player types' section, including the tool list. The tool list was collapsed into a few sentences of prose and placed accordingly, the rest was tweaked and slightly reworded to remove NN/guide text. There is little else to be said about the subject whilst remaining this side of relevance, anything additional will fit onto the mini-games article. QuagmireDog 00:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok. But this is now over 5 days old; when will the discussion be closed? Hemhem20X6 00:39, 3 September 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 all, CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Castellana[edit]

SPAM. A self-promotion page linked glaringly to the author's products, which I'd also suggest for deletion.

  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Powers T 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7, as per above. wikipediatrix 03:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. As for the products, delete them. MER-C 07:04, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad and drake[edit]

Page appears to be personal promotion. ChinaNailStorm 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I found the thing in articles for cleanup. I was going to nominate it myself and then saw the AfD tag.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page from author of the fictional characters. Ohconfucius 07:32, 29 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_26&oldid=1116775086"