Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 26 August 28 >

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 Deleted and redirected to List of Care Bears.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend Bear[edit]

I actually deleted an article with the same subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Bear (comic) without knowing that this other article existed. They're not copies of one another, and nor is it a recreation. But I already outlined the reasons for the nomination in the previous AFD, and I'll copy them here: The webcomic can be seen here, there is no Alexa rank, although the article claims that it served 20,000 unique visitors a month. Maybe that's true, but there's no external sources about the subject that I can find. That's probably because it is not a notable website or piece of work. - Hahnchen 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No google hits, the site's forum has only a couple hundred comments since 1999. A very persistent weird little page that has somehow managed to *not* become a web phenomenon and non-notable Dina 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other AfD. I like the sample panel though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Care Bears. Danny Lilithborne 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no Alexa rank, one Google result. Bradcis 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Danny. Powers T 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Care Bears, as per Danny Lilithborne's good insight! LinaMishima 16:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the history, then recreate as a redirect to List of Care Bears per Danny Lilithborne. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per above. Erechtheus 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rediect Erechtheus: how can you delete and redirect? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You delete the article -- so that the current stuff isn't available in the history -- then recreate it as a redirect. In point of fact, after a delete, anyone would be free to create the redirect as a purely editorial decision; thus, it would be helpful if everybody specifying "redirect" would clarify if they really thought leaving the current article available in the history was a good idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I specified "redirect"; leaving the history is not a problem for me. Powers T 23:31, 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 delete CSD G7 author's request. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corner Pocket[edit]

This webcomic, seen here with 11 forum members, no assertion of notability and no Alexa rank. "Corner Pocket" "Dylan Evans" on generates 6 Google hits. (Dylan Evans being the author). - Hahnchen 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no non-trivial secondary sources, no assertion of notability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Alexa rank, one google result. Bradcis 04:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already went through a deletion battle, and won. The reason the site doesn't have many forum members is due to the fact that it's a 2006 comic. SugarFLY 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above deletion arguments. Notability can't be proven. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. Resolute 05:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine then, go ahead. Delete it. Just know that I am taking this to heart.SugarFLY 05:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry for reacting so harshly. This comic is my life, and wikipedia is the only place I was getting hits from. You can't blame me for trying. Nevertheless, please remove this article. I'd rather not associate my work with asenine elitists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SugarFLY (talk • contribs) 2006-08-27 06:03:40
    • If you came to Wikipedia in order to "get hits", then you came here for the wrong reasons. You didn't come here to write an encyclopaedia article; you can here to write an advertisement. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Uncle G 11:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per creator request. Also, to the above user please read WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Thank you. I will put a speedy deletion tag on this article.--Jersey Devil 08:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, extremelly obscure, probably vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:23, 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 - The two keep votes are from vandals. I strongly suspect that they are sockpuppets of the author of Dysonism (namely User:Dysonism). I shall snowball this and put the lot of them under vandalwatch. - Richardcavell 12:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysonism[edit]

De-prod by anonymous user without explanation. NN neologism that gets 88 google hits. Irongargoyle 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Dysonism is real. I've seen it multiple times in world of warcraft. I use it myself sometimes. It should be kept. It is REAL. -Arisoni
  • Strong Keep Dysonism is a form of art. Just because you have no clue or know nothing about it doesnt mean that you should up it for delete. Many (being 50+) people I know Practice this form of art. Spiffydudex
  • Delete, per nom and WP:NFT. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, unbelievably nonnotable. NawlinWiki 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ridiculous. User:Shy1520 1:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete steamsteamlol.ytmnd.com Many (being 50+) people I know Practice this form of art. Danny Lilithborne 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definately unnotable. Bradcis 04:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs to be more widely known to be notable - perhaps in the future it will be, but until then WP is not a Crystal Ball Seaphoto 04:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NEO, notability not established. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non notable, and likely made up in school one day. Resolute 05:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 07:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:24, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoko Goto[edit]

Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, 80,000 g hits xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn —Khoikhoi 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—However did you determine that she does not meet the "Japanese equivalent"? My command of the Japanese language is hardly sufficient for me to verify. Williamborg (Bill) 04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No notable mainstream work in Japan, no notable awards, no notable magazine appearance (unless Bachelor Magazine is a notable magazine and her feature was prominent, WP:PORN BIO says one needs to be Playmate of the month), small number of films (www.amazon.jp shows only 22 results in a DVD search her name[1]). --- Hong Qi Gong 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—That's good enough research for me! Thanks Williamborg (Bill) 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable porn actress. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — nn Deon555talkReview 10:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable porn actress. Thε Halo Θ 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it would be hard for a lot of JAV actresses to meet WP:PORN BIO as is, this one doesn't come close even if applied loosely. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To me, that only reflects the fact that "a lot" of Japanese porn actresses are not notable. Japanese porn as an industry and a subject itself is definitely notable, but many individuals involved in it may not be. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 22 DVDs at as mainstream an outlet as Amazon is not notable? How many American adult models can claim 22 DVDs at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Waldenbooks combined? To apply the 100-film American test to models from other countries is to ensure a clear cultural bias at Wikipedia. To now make them pass tests not even American actor/models can pass is to blatantly attempt to censor Wikipedia of Japanese models. As I have stated before, if this model is not qualified for a stand-alone article, she certainly qualifies for a mention at a List of Japanese female porn stars. However, the nominating editor also nominated that list for deletion, and ensured its deletion by deceptive means. He first edited that extensive list of models who had no article (and probably did not need them), down to a list of only models who had articles and stated here that "This list really does not serve any purpose. That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." He is now systematically de-populating that category. This is an underhanded way to censor Wikipedia. Dekkappai 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know how many times I must tell you to assume good faith. All articles that get deleted are deleted through the AfD process. I do not delete the articles. Editors vote and discuss, and eventually an admin deletes the article if s/he deems it should be deleted. Non-notable porn actresses should not have articles on WP. It's a simple matter. This person, even in Japan, has starred in a very small number of non-notable porn movies, have received no awards, no notable magazine appearance, no mainstream work, etc etc. Not all porn actresses are notable, no matter what culture or what country they are from. WP should not act as a porn directory with an indiscriminate list of unknown porn actresses. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To make my vote clear: I do not believe every model/actress deserves her own article. That's what lists are for, and 22 DVDs at Amazon certainly qualifies for a listing at List of Japanese female porn stars. However, that extensive list of names mostly with no articles (and not qualifying for them, hence the need for the list) was deleted with a statement implying a category (i.e. individual articles) would serve in its place. Now the category is being systematically depopulated. The options seem to be: 1) re-instate the list, and delete individual articles not meeting notability, 2) keep the individual articles, or 3) openly state Wikipedia is being censored of Japanese actress/model names. Dekkappai 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That list ultimately got deleted because the overwhelming majority of the names were unverified to even be real people. Contrast that to most other lists on WP, all or most of the entries on them link to articles, and those articles in turn verify the existence and notability of the persons or topics in question. However, this discussion is on the Shoko Goto article particularly, and no, 22 porn DVDs on the Japanese Amazon is most definitely not notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, HongQiGong, I'll assume good faith in this statement. You claim the list was deleted because the names were unverifiable, though no apparent effort was made at the time to verify a single name. You have just done the work necessary to verify Shoko Goto. I think you will agree that 22 DVDs at Amazon constitutes verification that the model actually exists, if not enough notability (by the American test) for an article? Now, if you will agree to help reinstate the list, giving Ms. Goto honorary first entry, I will agree not only to take up the work you started in verifying and weeding the list down, I will agree to help weed out the articles on actresses who do not merit stand-alone articles-- so long as they are (if verifiable, of course) allowed an entry on the list. I will also apologize for misinterpreting your actions as bad faith editing (i.e. nominating the list for deletion, claiming a category served its purpose, then depopulating the category, and claiming the list was unverfiable without making any effort, or asking for others to verify a single name). Deal? Dekkappai 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I honestly have no problem with that list if all of them can be verified to be real people. You'll notice that almost every other list on WP have entries that link to articles that exist. I have never seen a list on WP where most of the entries do not link to articles, and that do not provide some sources on the existence of the people or topics on the list. That was the major problem with the list. The article had existed for a good while, and still, there was no evidence provided that they were actual people! Anybody could have edited the article to insert a completely made-up and imaginary name! But no, I'm not interested in re-creating that list. However, I won't nominate it for deletion if the names on the list are verified to exist, either because those names link to articles, or because sources are inserted at the end of the list to verify their existence. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not asking you to help with the list, just to say that you won't nominate it for deletion, and will oppose its deletion so long as the names are all verified. If a particular name is not verifiable, we'll delete the name, but not the entire list. If this is what you're saying, then I change my vote on this particular article to Delete until notability is established. However, since verifiability of the subject has been established, I say Move Shoko Goto's name to a future, revised, verified and footnoted List of Japanese female porn stars, which I will work on later and model on other, long-standing WP lists. If you agree to this, I apologize for misinterpreting what appeared to me to be an attempt to simply ban all these names from WP both as articles and as entries on a list. Dekkappai 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed then, non notable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. It is not realistic to expect a Japanese adult model to appear on Playboy, and if that is a criteria we need to refactor that right away to fit a better worldwide view. For what its worth, I've also listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan. RFerreira 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree, but that's why I mentioned that she would not meet a Japanese equivalent of the test. She may not have been in Playboy (which by the way, has a Japanese edition in Japan), she also does not have any notable Japanese magazine appearance. She does not have anything equivalent to that of being a Playmate of the Month. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for the show of support, RFerreira & the below, I was beginning to think I was alone on this. My point is, if she doesn't deserve her own article, she certainly belongs on a list of Japanese porn stars (which was deleted.) I am currently going through the old list (mentioned above) which was deleted for 2 stated reasons: 1) the subject would be covered by a category (implying every model would need an individual article, yet the category is now being systematically depopulated), and 2) to quote, "the overwhelming majority of the names were unverified to even be real people"... I am in the process of just the first pass of verification, through the simplest of Amazon searches, and have so far come across only 2 or 3 questionable names out of (I'm guestimating) about 100 names searched so far. So, obviously, no attempt or request was made for verification. I see the same thing here-- "She may not have been in Playboy"... etc. Shoko Goto has been major presence in this field for over a year. It would not be at all surprising if she has over 100 appearances (again, the proposed American test) to her credit. The problem (and the language/culture creates that problem) is verifying that she has made enough appearances to be considered notable. Amazon is a mainstream source, and this model has 22 DVDs there. When I was in Japan, I know there were publications with names like "AV Actress," etc. which could be used as sources. Unfortunately I am not there now, or I would be happy to check these publications to verify claims of notability. Perhaps there is an editor in the country who can help with this? This Amazon search is useful, but shows only the tip of a very large iceberg. It will clear as notable only the most extremely mistaken cases for deletion of currently active actresses. Amazon shows only DVDs (and to a lesser degree VHS) that are curently in print. In verifying the list, I have come across several major stars from 20 years ago, stars who certainly made over 100 appearances, who today have only a paltry representation at Amazon, because those videos are now out of print. For example, even Tani Naomi, who is mentioned even in mainstream discussions of Japanese cinema and culture, would fail the proposed test. So, by sticking to this proposed test, Wikipedia will, contrary to its stated goals, be more censored and less comprehensive in scope than even the mainstream, paper encyclopedias. Now, I am with HongQiGong in believing that we need notability for stand-alone articles, and verifiability for mention within articles (i.e., entry on the List). The standard for notability, however, cannot be the same for American subjects and for international subjects (particularly those in non-English-speaking countries), if Wikipedia is to claim to be making any attempt at avoiding cultural bias. Sorry if I ran on too much, but obviously this article is part of a much larger issue. If there is an area on Wikipedia for discussing this subject (that is, Japanese adult model/actresses), please point me there, as I would like to participate in it. Dekkappai 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thanks for agreeing that notability needs to be established for these porn actresses to have articles dedicated to them. And no, we can't expect Japanese porn actresses, or even mainstream actors and actresses for that matter, to have notability through American media. Which is why I keep repeating, again and again, that some of these Japanese porn stars would not pass a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. For example, has this person won notable awards in Japan? Has this person done notable mainstream work in Japan? Has this person made notable magazine appearances in Japan? If the answer to these questions is "no", then she's not notable. Simple comments like "she's notable, Google search returns XXX number of results and she's been in 22 DVDs" do not help. Porn videos do not reach the mainstream like mainstream movies do. And also, please note that invalidating WP:PORN BIO because it's only a proposal would subject these porn stars to WP:BIO, which they would more likely fail. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the proposed guideline is an actual guideline. --Golbez 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and should be kept for expansion. bbx 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, Dekkappai in particular. Having 22 DVDs on amazon.co.jp and 236,000 hits on Google (Japanese) does indicate notability in my opinion. Our guidelines are failing us if they suggest otherwise. Yamaguchi先生 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Only 22 porn DVDs are hardly enough. And it's been determined that Google hits is not accurate in determining notability because of Google bombing. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PORN BIO notes in the 100-film an exception for non-heterosexual materials. Also, I do not believe that any Japanese porn actors meet the 100-film requirement. Twenty-two sounds very high for a foreigner. Jecowa 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't believe her work was in Gay pornography, so the exception would not apply here. And there are Japanese porn actresses that will meet the 100-film requirement. Probably not as many as American porn actresses, but that just reflects that Japanese porn actresses are usually not as notable as American porn actresses, even in Japan (relatively speaking, that is). --- Hong Qi Gong 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - During my stay in Japan, I saw models just like the ones you are nominating for deletion appearing on TV shows, radio, in mainstream magazines, public autograph signings... They are far more notable in Japan than their American counterparts who may, or may not be more active in film, but who generally stick to the adult entertainment field. Personally, I can't think of the name of a single current American porn star. However I can name several Japanese ones I have seen in mainstream media. Again, applying the standards of one country onto another is a recipe for cultural bias. Dekkappai 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - In that case, the problem would be verifiability. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jecowa 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 100-film requirement in culturally bias. Jecowa 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how that would be culturally biased. But even not using that criteria, this person still has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. I'm really failing to see how she could possibly be notable enough. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:21, 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)  20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puritan covenant[edit]

Original research. Google shows no relevant hits (though there are plenty for the phrase itself), and the material that is accurate is already covered in Covenant Theology, which is not an exclusively Puritan thing. --Flex 00:54, 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)  20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatetarianism[edit]

Previously speedied as nonsense; author recreated page and argues on the talk page that this practice is notable. I don't see it in the article, which has no verifiable sources except for one reference to the Bible. NawlinWiki 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google only knows about it via LiveJournal profiles and a MySpace. Even the Biblical link is nonsense, since it's just a link to the entire Bible. BigHaz 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that those Google results are for "meatetarianism" without Wikipedia being included. A google for "meatetarian -wikipedia" throws up more results, but these tend to be individuals calling themselves meatetarians presumably for a bit of fun, rather than any coherent ideology along the lines of vegetarianism. BigHaz 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would imply that it is a joke ideology, like FSM, which could technically be notable. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but my experience with FSM and other notable joke ideologies is that there's some amount of "official" standard to parts of them. Most of what Google throws up seems to be people saying things like "I need a name for what I am...how about meatetarian". BigHaz 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they had looked in the encyclopaedia, they would have found that carnivores and omnivores already have names. Uncle G 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The operative phrase is "could be". To make it over the bar for inclusion, a joke belief has to be properly documented in detail by other people who are independent of its founders/creators. See Flying Spaghetti Monster#References_and_notes. To determine that requires research. Counting Google hits is not research. Looking for sources is. BigHaz is saying that no such sources exist. Uncle G 11:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, non-notable neologism, nonsensical. Rohirok 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rohirok. Thanks/wangi 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 03:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nyuk nyuk. Danny Lilithborne 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bradcis 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NEO, nonesnese. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism.--Jersey Devil 08:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Creative, but even those of us with rather seriously inclusionist views have a hard time arguing this has merit. Williamborg (Bill) 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. JIP | Talk 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not to mention the nonsense, should be speedied as a recreated article after a pervious deletion. Thε Halo Θ 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No speedy deletion criteria apply. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 15:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, seeing as NawlinWiki stated: "...Previously speedied as nonsense; author recreated page..." this meets the gerneral CSD criteria under General Criteria #4 Recreation of deleted material applies. Hope this helps :) Thε Halo Θ 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong, it does not meet the criteria. G4 is quite explicit about it not applying to speedy deletions. Please read and familiarize yourself with the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought that meant that if all the votes in the pervious AfD were 'Speedy Delete', it could not be re-speedied. I now understand what that sentance means. Sorry for the mix up, and thanks for helping to clear that up in my head ;). Thε Halo Θ 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pathlessdesert 16:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again as a nonsensical neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism (WP:NEO) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:54, 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)  20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProAna.US[edit]

Pro-anorexia website; contested speedy that maybe possibly asserts notability, so moving here for further discussion. NawlinWiki 01:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I beleive this article is important, please don't delete it. Thank you. rosaliiasan112@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnnaR (talk • contribs) 27 August 2006. — then updated by possible single purpose account: 24.59.119.115 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete non-notable Hello32020 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Rohirok 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't belive this article should be deleted, the information is correct, this is a high trafficked site and information should be available, nor is the information here inappropriate, offensive, or rude. Murong Bi — Possible single purpose account: 69.196.145.78 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Response Alexa ranking is below 1 million; that's not very high-trafficked. NawlinWiki 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement, non-notable, etc. -- Kicking222 02:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alexa Rank ~1 million, ~123 results on Google. Bradcis 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense, but that's some awfully backwards logic you have there. Are you sure you didn't mean to say delete? --Wafulz 05:43, 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)  20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Jung-En Woo[edit]

i am re-nominating this page for deletion and have received permission to do so from wiki admin. it was nominated for deletion once before and i have read the debate on keep or delete. i found the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing. thus, i submit it for deletion.

dr. meredith jung-en woo is a very good scholar and has authored some very good works, but nothing about her record makes her exceptional in the field of korean studies. her research, while important in its own way, is not commonly thought of as being central to the field. her books are a very fine accomplishment, but among scholars, it is not exceptional. i know of other scholars whose records would warrent a page before her, the late james palais being among them.

specifically, dr. meredith jung-en woo is not, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker. as an example, the koreanist bruce cumings (to whom she is married) has over 20 books. his contributions to the field of korean studies reshaped its issues and assumptions, particularly those surrounding the korean civil war. today, NO SCHOLAR wishing to research the korean civil war would be taken seriously unless they first addressed the arguments raised by bruce cumings. THAT is noteworthy among academics.

next, her accomplishments such as advising the US government and appearing in the new york times are neither exceptionally noteworthy or overly numerous.

i argue that for an academician to appear in wikipedia that person needs to be truely exceptional and to achievements that place him or her far above their peers and colleagues. wikipedia needs to have high standards in this area.

in short, this seems more of a "vanity" page than a page dedicated to an exceptional scholar whose ideas have reworked or reshaped scholarship in their field. as such, i ask that you reopen the debate to delete the page. Hongkyongnae 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can afford to have broader standards for notability than traditional encyclopedias. This author has several reputably published books and is clearly regarded by several mainstream media outlets as a person to call on for views in her field. Regardless of her relative position within her field, her accomplishments considered alone are notable enough for Wikipedia. I see no evidence that the authorship of this article is motivated by vanity. By the way, James Palais does have his own article. Rohirok 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Firstly, the most important question one must ask per WP:PROF is this: Is this article on her verifiable? Yes, it is. Secondly, in 1996 she was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Presidential Commission on U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Isn't that a noteworthy job-scope? After looking through the proposed guideline of WP:PROF, I agree that the subject in question has not quite fulfilled the seven criterias. However, her dissertation was awarded the Columbia University's highest distinction. Thus she meets point number 8. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. The fact that Hongkyongnae has written such a huge and involved deletion-reason summary that is very long on criticism of the article's subject but very light on actual Wikipedia policy citations, I have to wonder if this is not a bad-faith nomination. wikipediatrix 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable professor. Bradcis 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I get the impression one could easily find this level of notability in any university professor's profile, but there are a few things that stand out. However, I notice that much of the bio is a copy of her University of Michigan faculty profile. That seems like a problem, although I'm not knowledgeable enough in copyright law to know for sure. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding First Nomination The content from the first nomination has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Jung-En Woo (first nomination). -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per User:Siva1979 --- Hong Qi Gong 06:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siva 1979. I don't care if this was nominated in bad faith or not, the subject is well within the bounds of our notability guidelines and no real reason for deletion has been presented. RFerreira 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—In this case the nominator for deletion sets a higher standard for Notability (people), than Wikipedia as a whole does (one need only participate in AfD discussions for a few weeks to recognize that). This is not a nomination for a Nobel Prize, where the standard is best in class. This is a Wikipedia article where a recognized test of notability is whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Although Dr. Meredith Jung-en Woo may not be, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker, she has accumulated a sufficient body of work and a sufficient recognition to warrant inclusion. If Wikipedia required the same standards of notability as the Encyclopædia Britannica, then we’d be the Encyclopædia Britannica; we’re a much wider body of knowledge and data; some of us think that is valuable. Williamborg (Bill) 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment—I appreciated Tariqabjotu linking the original debate. I note that although the nominator found "the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing", they were actually about as unanimous and strong as it gets for these AfD debates. I'd encourage the nominator not to proceed with this nomination again (and administrators to avoid wasting our Wikiresources by keeping this debate alive). If there are more worthy candidates for mention, so be it; please write articles about them! Williamborg (Bill) 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:PROF, potential bad faith nomination. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems good faith to me, checked with an admin and everything WP:AGF. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the original creator of this page. I did so to complete a dead link at her husband's, Bruce Cumings, Wikipedia page. I do not accept the argument put forward by Hongkyongnae that the page must be deleted because the subject has not made an important contribution in the area of Korean politics. Meredith Jung-En Woo's work extends beyond that narrow definition. Hongkyongnae also oddly conflates the work of a historian (Bruce Cumings) with that of a political scientist. Yes, the original page, now somewhat edited, did borrow heavily on the U Michigan political science page mentioned above. Fair-use and non-commercial use priciples seem to apply sufficiently well here and the authors there do not object to the use here. She is a prominent member of a prominent department whose visibility continues to grow. For all these reasons, this page should remain. Yosemitemac 23:37, 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 (1) this is not an article, (2) article was merged, thus the history must be preserved. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the year[edit]

Unnecessary redirect page Otto4711 01:22, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dainin Katagiri[edit]

I don't think sufficient notability has been shown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's no Dalai Lama, sure, but it looks like he has at least two books out by Shambhala Publications: [2] [3]. Appears to have notability in helping spread the popularity of Zen Buddhism in the US. Rohirok 02:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable in his area of Zen Buddhism and the information about him is verifiable as well on the net. A google search shows quite a number of references to him. And I wish to add that as a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can afford to have broader standards for notability than traditional encyclopedias. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is definately notable. Bradcis 04:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO, not having multiple non-trivial third-party articles. also fails WP:BK since no evidence his books have met any of those requirements (adopted as a textbook, best seller, mutiple major reviews). keep noms beg the question by stating "appears to have notability" without documentation, or wishing for broader standards of notability - this is the standard we have now, and it's a level playing field for all. Change the notability guidelines if you must, but this is what we have to work with. Tychocat 09:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—WP:BIO, or actually Notability (people), which is where WP:BIO redirects these days, indicates (today) that "this guideline is not Wikipedia policy". And it observes that notability is contentious. However a fair test of whether a person is notable is sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources. And ways to verify notability of articles reminds us that "article for deletion reviews, although frequently limited to internet resources, must remain aware that not all published material of significance has been posted on the internet." Bottom line...since he was a significant regional player in a major religion, since his existence is verifiable, since the role he played is as significant as that of the founders of, say, the Evangelical Lutherans in Mission of the Lutheran church in Minnesota, it would be inappropriate to delete the article. Williamborg (Bill) 13:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Granted the guideline is not policy, but the rest of the sentence regarding this guideline says, "...meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included". If you're happy with just being verifiable to get an article, then obviously all of us deserve articles? I will also note that your statement "...he was a significant regional player in a major religion..." begs the question that remains unanswered, of the documentation of being a "significant regional player". Tychocat 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siva.`Bakaman Bakatalk 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. -Kmaguir1 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Need time to research students who received "Dharma Transmission" from Rev. Katagiri's which will help demonstate his influence on Zen in America. ZenPractioner 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we need time to research, what does that say? Not easily accessible. And things that aren't easily accessible are more likely to not be notable.-Kmaguir1 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Williamborg, but remove the quotes (or cite references for them). RFerreira 07:19, 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, this is not an article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the Year (movie)[edit]

Unnecessary redirect page Otto4711 01:28, 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 Deleted and merged in to Bubble hash.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bubblehash[edit]

The result of this AfD is a unanimous delete/merge - implementing Vpoko 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blatant ad, consisting entirely of original research, no references or citations, mentions patents that have nothing to do with the product Vpoko 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like an ad. Bubble hash has better formatting and information. Merge bubblehash into it and delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Six.oh.six (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and delete. --Guinnog 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, keep as redirect. Powers T 01:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been trying to make something of Bubble hash and have looked at bubblehash a number of times and can't find much verifiable and pertinent stuff to merge. --Alf melmac 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Most merge votes have an impled "any relevant info" tacked on. =) Maybe mention that the Cannabis Cup is in Amsterdam? Powers T 15:09, 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)  21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Draganic[edit]

Failed to win his party's gubernatorial nomination so also fails WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per BlueValour. -- Kjkolb 06:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Probably does fail WP:BIO—rather than simply citing WP:BIO in the nomination, it would be useful to have a brief analysis by the nominator as to why they so judge. The debate on candidates at candidates and elections has gone on for a bit. Five years from now the Wikistandard will be (I'd wager) that these articles on candidates are retained since 1) they are likely to appear in future campaigns and therefore there will be a later interest in their past record and 2) they will be of some interest to later historical research. Bottom line—I'm not voting to keep, but my sense is that in the future we will begin keeping these. Williamborg (Bill) 14:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - where a candidate fails to gain office then they need notability independent of their campaign to gain an article - this guy hasn't. BlueValour 15:28, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animal Crossing residents[edit]

Blatant game-guide. While Characters in the Animal Crossing series, a terrible article, at least covers characters who appear in every copy of a game and have a somewhat important role, this is a list of randomly-appearing (every player's game will have about a half-dozen from this list) characters who are nothing more than a fixed appearance and one of four personality profiles. Absolutely nothing verifiable can or ever will be said about these characters in any reliable source, save for the inane game-guide fact that they appear in such-and-such game and have one of the four personality profiles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Animal Crossing series since plenty of articles have Wikitables like that one. SNS 02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is pure GameFAQs content, and if it's merged there, I will be deleting it from that article per WP:NOT, just as an editorial decision. Nothing can be added to this list of essentially unimportant names but more game-guide info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT. wikipediatrix 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 10:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: looks like something that should be in a game guide, not wikipedia. Mitaphane talk 10:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete awfull article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish game manuals, specially obscure games --Mecanismo | Talk 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps Animal Crossing isn't big in Portugal, but in both Japan and the United States, it's a huge series. Obscure? Not even a little bit. -- Kicking222 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SNS. -- Kicking222 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a game guide, not an article. JIP | Talk 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really wondering here: HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE? The article is merely a list of characters, just with little information on them. There's no "guide" here: the page doesn't tell you how to become friends with these characters, or what actions can be taken when they're around, or list off some cheats to allow you to make these characters topless. I've never even played this game, so it's not as if I have some vested interest in it. But at least three different people above have used the phrase "game guide", which this is not. -- Kicking222 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not so much a guide as a document that will only be of interest and use to players of Animal Crossing. Too specific information about elements in a specific computer game is not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 16:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a checklist. Game guides for Animal Crossing will often be just lists of things, since the game doesn't have much in the way of goals, so a common make-your-own-goal is seeing all of a type of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand greatly I don't think that it's fair to have Creatures in the Metroid series, the talk page of which has no mention of the word "Game Guide," and delete this. This is a list of characters with more personality and purpose in their game than Autoads, Drivels, and Proboscums have in Metroid, yet for some reason, this is a Game Guide and Creatures in the Metroid series isn't. 64.175.36.108 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think the Metroid lists should be deleted too. wikipediatrix 22:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Expand it with what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly it is not a game guide. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Merge per SNS. Pixelface 01:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Characters in the Animal Crossing series, NOT Animal Crossing series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those characters listed on the page are non-notable, incredibly minor to the point of interchangability, and do not even necessarily exist in the player's game. There is nothing to actually say about them. --tjstrf 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With no merge - excessively minor "characters". Wickethewok 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Combination 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, merge, MERGE!

I am opposed to deleting this or any article. If ANYONE deletes this page, I will re-create it.

And if you do, the admins will rightfully speedy delete as a recreation of deleted content. You aren't allowed to just unilaterally override an afd like that. WP:DRV is the proper venue for such things. --tjstrf 20:16, 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)  21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Jensen[edit]

From the text of the article, doesn't seem to be notable. Nonpareility 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, its vanity, look who made the page. Dinosaur puppy 02:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gets 586 Google hits. —Khoikhoi 03:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unfortunately CSD A7 doesn't apply to dead people. MER-C 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. wikipediatrix 03:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, appears to be written by family member Seaphoto 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Not notable, nor verifiable. Why doesn't A7 apply to dead people, just curious. RFerreira 08:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably it's just pure nonsense --Mecanismo | Talk 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to doubt the intentions of whoever wrote this, but without notability I can't know -- I can't verify it. --Shirahadasha 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly it's nonsense. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete. It appears real enough, but notability is not asserted in my view. Ohconfucius 02:00, 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 deleted under A3. --Fang Aili talk 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in gay rights[edit]

If not for a template, this would be a blank page. Therefore, I'd say it's a crystal ball attack here BigHaz 02:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Create the article again in two years, if necessary. I'm not even sure why the year template has a in gay rights link anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Tariq. —Khoikhoi 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Article contains no content. wikipediatrix 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A3. Tagged as such. MER-C 03:10, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-pen.com[edit]

nn website. Internet 00 02:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails all tests. Reads like spam. wikipediatrix 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable website as per WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Finally, yet another website article where the author doesn't include an external links section containing the URL of the website in question!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no alexa rank and fails WP:WEB.--Jersey Devil 08:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very obscure, absolutely not notable. Pure spam. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yet another website vanity article. Note how it lists individual forum members. JIP | Talk 14:47, 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 Speedily deleted (for second time); virtually no content other than link to site; advertising. NawlinWiki 02:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.cwimedical.com[edit]

nn website. Internet 00 02:51, 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)  21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exiled Arts (webcomic)[edit]

nn webcomic. Internet 00 02:55, 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)  21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

515alive[edit]

This article is not notable and self promoting. It gets only 200 hits on Google. It was listed as proposed delete, then speedy delete, but another editor undid that. mwazzap 03:06, 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)  21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oslou[edit]

One month old internet game with 1000 members. Seems like an advertisement, has 2920 google results but most are not related to the game either. Fails WP:WEB. Lid 02:58, 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 --Durin 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein (South Park)[edit]

Somebody can't be serious. A seperate article on Hussein as a "South Park character?"--FuriousFreddy 03:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, he has appeared as a character in many episodes of the show as well as the feature film, and has developed a sort-of backstory and character independent from the real Saddam Hussein, so, yeah, it's valid. wikipediatrix 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't believe I'm supporting this article, but it seems quite clear that Saddam Hussein is recurring character on the South Park series. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Recurring South Park characters. He is already listed there and this just seems to have several pictures. TJ Spyke 04:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article? This article is actually rather long and involved. How can you say it "just seems to have several pictures"?? wikipediatrix 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of that is fluff and not needed. I don't think he needs his own article though because his entry on Recurring South Park characters is more than adequate. TJ Spyke 05:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fictional Saddam in South Park universe is a fairly developed recurring character. Rohirok 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know anything about South Park, frankly, but I believe this character has appeared several times on the series. So its a keep. Terence Ong (T | C) 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is among the most popular and well-known characters of South Park and has been fleshed out on the show quite a bit compared to other recurring characters.Gdo01 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-known character in the South Park universe set apart from the real-life Hussein.--Jersey Devil 07:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above. Gazpacho 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipediatrix. Mikker (...) 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known character, this entry was popular with people in my university. Also, this character seems to be independent of the real Saddam Hussein, so it's worth keeping. Fancruft and POV in the article can easily be removed. --TheM62Manchester 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a very notable ficitional character. Thε Halo Θ 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TJ Spike. Powers T 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable minor character. Appears in movie as well as recurring appearances in shows. Pathlessdesert 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, put it on the Saddam Hussein page and see if they want to keep it--it doesn't merit this, though, even as parody. -Kmaguir1 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. The character is independent of the real Hussein and shouldn't be included with the Southpark wikipage because he's not essential to outlining the show. I think the character is notable enough to warrant it's own page for clarification because of his reoccurance in the program. -Shazbot85Talk 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never comment per XYZ ever in anything, but its all been said above. Per them - GIen 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted; it's covered sufficiently on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_in_U.S._popular_culture . -Kmaguir1 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Glen's per them.--Anthony Krupp 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the character is notable and recurring too wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Saddam Hussein is notable, South Park is notable, Saddam Hussein on South park is but a subset of the two. Unlike most of the other characters on the series, who are fictional, this one is a real and notable person who gets lampooned by South Park from time to time. He is not a main character, but is the representation of a dictator, who could just as well be Kim Jong-il, Adolph Hitler or Fidel Castro if not for the desire to have a recognisable politico-cultural date-stamp. A separate article on him would not appear justified. Church of Scientology and Tom Cruise, have a section within the article. It can be merged into Recurring South Park characters per Spyke. Ohconfucius 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Not really a speedy keep per se, but definitely notable nonetheless. RFerreira 07:20, 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)  21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Christian Church Ministry of Nepal[edit]

Notability not established for this obscure and small ministry, fails all tests. wikipediatrix 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There doesn't appear to be anything special about this church that makes it warrant its own article. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Also, there are no references, unless you count an external link in the external link section to the church's own site. -- Kjkolb 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it contains no assertion of notability or importance in comparison to other churches/ministries. GRBerry 01:16, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Brookes[edit]

This article appears to be a biography on an unimportant person. -- P.B. Pilhet 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Well, I'm sure he's important to someone, just not quite ready for Wikipedia prime time yet. Fails notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 06:27, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olya Nikitova[edit]

Not notable, and the page is filled with gems like "her mere presence guarantees that the company is always “in the black”."--Nonpareility 03:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. WP is not a resume-posting service. --Pagana 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 06:29, 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 speedy revert user page move into article space. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Josey[edit]

Pretty obvious why to delete... is an autobiography which came from a user page. 203.218.141.70 03:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gee, do you think writing the article in the first person violates WP:VAIN? --Pagana 04:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Autobiographical self promotion. Seaphoto 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Perhaps later when there is more notability. Williamborg (Bill) 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Autobiographies go on userpages, not article pages. --physicq210 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either move back to his user page, where this text came from, or delete. --Metropolitan90 07:07, 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)  21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone Fan Forum[edit]

A non-notable web forum --Nonpareility 03:37, 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) 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Adamson[edit]

Vanity page of non-notable musician. Fails to satisfy WP:MUSIC, as the albums released were not released by any major label or important indie label. Additionally, the albums were released by 'Uncharted Records' which was founded by Adamson himself, which would appear to make this WP:VANITY. The article cites no references, which leads to the conclusion that, with the exception of the discography, this is original research and so fails WP:V, and WP:RS also. Valrith 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be written by subject or friend thereof. Mainly not notable, but other points cited above are valid too. Seaphoto 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence albums charted, no major reviews. Rather, I found a couple of reviews, but as they were written in the first person I gather they were self-submitted ("This was actually the first song I wrote for this album."). No sales ranking of CDs on Amazon or AllMusic. No interviews or other articles about him. only 287 distinct Ghits. Tychocat 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and both comments above. NawlinWiki 20:40, 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) 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottson[edit]

Self confessed small business with currently no notability. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball clause on the claims of wanting to expand. Lid 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, smacks of self promotion. Author has only one other edit besides those for this article. Seaphoto 04:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm from Englewood, where this business is supposedly located, and I've never heard of it. --Muéro 04:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tells is that Eil2359 (talk · contribs), the creator of the article, is Kyle S. Anderson, the founder of the business. It appears that this Wikipedia article is being used as a substitute for the business paying for and having its own web site. The business has no discernable presence whatsoever, and is completely unverifiable. Wikipedia is neither a free wiki host nor the Yellow Pages. Delete. Uncle G 11:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credible, Iv recieved copyrights for that title, so its a credible article for Wikipedia--Eil2359 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's only a credible article if sources other than the company can be found that discuss the company. As it is, there's no evidence to be found that the company even exists at all. Uncle G 01:30, 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) 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Asian Xpress[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Article exists only as a flight list for a brand new regional airline that appears to have just started flying August 1, 2006. ghits:[5] — NMChico24 04:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Soon, it is a small flight company but it will grow, so it's better to improve it (rather than delete it)as it grows. FAX deserves to have it's own wikipage.--Zack2007 09:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article may need some cleanup, but your own google search shows coverage by multiple independant sources. Meets WP:CORP. --Daniel Olsen 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be turned into an article rather than a flight list, which given its short history would probably be difficult. It is an awfully small airline, though, so an article may not even be worthwhile. Creating an article on the parent company and having this page as a redirect might be better. -- Kjkolb 06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. Only 148 distinct Google hits for "fly asian xpress", most of which are flight listings and press releases announcing the start of a new airline, which by coincidence makes this article look like part of a PR campaign. Newness of the firm also brings into question violation of "WP is not a newspaper". Tychocat 10:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per the article, several of them are non-trivial and definitely not re-prints of press releases. Uncle G 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G, verifiable and of national significance. All suburban routes and planes are purposely ceded to FAX [6] from the national airline Malaysia Airlines as the latter found them so unprofitable to operate. The operator, AirAsia is one of the biggest budget airlines in Asia. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UncleG. Passes WP:CORP with verifiable articles. the fact that the article could be better is not a reason for deletion, but a reason to improve the article. -- Whpq 17:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CORP, simple as that. Batmanand | Talk 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In all honesty, there really can't be an airline corporation that isn't notable, due to their necessary cashflow and size. (Unless the airline consists of only small planes) AdamBiswanger1 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. non-fictional airline --Vsion 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. -Kmaguir1 05:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:CORP criteria and is part of AirAsia one of Asia's largest budget carriers. Standard of article is not a good reason for nominating it here. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:56, 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) 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 42[edit]

Now that the suspicious passengers have been cleared and there was no malintent, there's really nothing to see here. This is just another security scare in a post-9|11 world; that's not notable enough it have its own article. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Covered by many news sources, that makes notability criteria for people, corporations, and software, why not events? --Daniel Olsen 04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable flight incident. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many things are covered by many news sources that are not encyclopedic. I agree with the nom, we do not need a separate article for every single minor airline scare, especially as their frequency will only continue to grow. This is akin to writing a separate article for every aftershock of a major earthquake. Resolute 05:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notable enough for a newspaper or magazine, but not an encyclopedia. There may have been news coverage, but that is just because people are nervous about terrorist attacks, especially involving planes. Also, there have been many other scares. Another analogy would be to have an article on when a volcano was expected to erupt and some evacuations occured, but the volcano never erupted and no significant changes came as a result. -- Kjkolb 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, articles shouldn't be kept on expectation of notability, nor past expectation of notability. It's not like the plane actually crashed. Gazpacho 08:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Northwest Airlines. It may not be notable as a stand-alone article, but it was an incident in the airline's history, and the timing was of note (after the response to the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot and during the impasse between NWA flight attendants and management, both of which provided more scrutiny for NWA). If incidents of equipment failures are included in the Northwest Airlines article, why shouldn't an incident that was equally of concern amongst passengers and crew? Tinlinkin 10:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I concede that the whole thing doesn't need a merge, so delete. Tinlinkin 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP is not a newspaper per WP:NOT. See Wikinews. Also, NWA's labor problems are not the topic of this article. Tychocat 10:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, false alarm. Powers T 15:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the incident wasn't significant enough for the airline to retire the flight number type 42 into flight number status field. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Recentism. Not even a notable part of the history of Northwest Airlines, let alone of the world. Batmanand | Talk 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If something similar happens later and this incident acquires historical or other value from the comparison, an article could be written then. --Shirahadasha 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a false alarm, and Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete compared to other incidents and accidents on airliners, this one really seems pretty weak. - Blood red sandman 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing inherently notable in Northwest Airlines Flight 42. There are several of them every week. This article deals with a miniscule part of the flight's history etc., a false alarm which has received 'one coverage' as defined in wiki notability criteria in WP:BIO. I contend that it is not a signicant event in aviation or terrorism history or the history of the airline in that, although it may result in a review of air-marshals' procedures, it would not have a significant impact on future events that suggests that it would pass a 20 year test, let alone a 100 year test. Ohconfucius 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete not notable. -Kmaguir1 05:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable incident, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Kusma (討論) 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I agree that it turned out to be pretty trivial. However, the "not Wikinews" comments don't make much sense to me. There is a place in Wikipedia for current events as the repository for all the world's knowledge. This event probably won't rank as historically significant, though. --Elliskev 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Security scare, but the plane was never in any real peril. Such diversions are usually quickly forgotten. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 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) 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrocide[edit]

Not a respected or well-used term. No citations of secondary sources. No credible references without an NPOV dispute found through a quick google search. Msoron 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreement here. Delete away. --Sean Lotz 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Msoron. It is terrible that it has existed since December 2004. -- Kjkolb 06:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. I can't see that being "respected or well-used" falls within any WP guideline or policy. Agree there seems to be little notability of the phrase with only 36 distinct Ghits. I would go as far as to argue the article should be deleted as a neologism, since none of the Google hits indicate anything beyond a made-up word to describe the abuses of Big Oil. Tychocat 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an incorrect dicdef. Petrocide is the act of killing a rock. Duh. JIP | Talk 14:49, 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 merge all. —Xyrael / 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangoo[edit]

This is a minor character and there is not enough information to make it it's own page. DynamoDT 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

  • Merge definately should be put merged into an article for minor characters or the main article itself.Altair 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: It's got good information, but it just doesn't have enough notability to exist as a separate article. Heimstern Läufer 23:05, 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) 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymundo Baltazar[edit]

Not Notable Kmaguir1 04:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This guy only seems notable through his appearance in Project Runway. A google search of his name get 1200 hits. Outside of this he's been in one indie movie, and apparently submitted a design for the WTC Memorial. I don't claim to know anything about the fashion world, but I would assume if he was well know in the industry he would have much more google hits than this. --Mitaphane talk 05:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:NN--Anthony Krupp 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete will change vote if notability is asserted into article.--Jersey Devil 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jersey Devil. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the information that is available from reliable sources worthy of an encyclopedia will leave this article a perpetual stub. He probably deserves a mention in the articles on the individual shows. Captainktainer * Talk 08:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNN-Shazbot85Talk 09:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hated Raymundo. I was so, so, SO glad when he was kicked off the show. He doesn't DESERVE an article, that loser! ...I mean, uh, shoot... delete as being non-notable. Yeah, that's what I meant to say... -- Kicking222 12:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But seriously, he was a crappy designer. -- Kicking222 12:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The TV gig might be frivolous, but it had a bit of a viewership. LotLE×talk 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh YEAH, and you're not biased, LotLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Nothing notable about reality show contestants, unless they have other notable achievements. Whether his designs are "good" is probably too subjective here, but it is not the issue here.Ohconfucius 02:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have no idea what motivated the nominations, but this article fails to demonstrate anything significant about its subject. There is nothing here that cannot be folded into a discussion of the show (a table of contestants, fates, and further actions would just be three columns and could very easily encompass everything here). There is no evidence that the figure has done anything except appear. Geogre 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. Jdclevenger 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim seems to be that unless you have notability outside of a Reality TV series, you are not entitiled to space in Wikipedia (space being such an increadably precious commodity within Wikipedia. Oh wait it isn't, is it?). By this logic, all Wikipedia pages devoted to fictional characters should be marked for deletion. After all, a fictional character's notability is almost by defintion a construct of the fiction in which he or she occurs. For example, Col. Jack O'Neill has a very nice article despite the fact that he is a character on Stargate / SG-1. Presumably, his notabilty is solely a function of the movie and the TV show and all the web references about him will be in the same contexts. Jack O'Neill will never write a book or run for president or do anything else notable, other than be a character of fiction. The contestants on a Reality TV show occupy an interesting niche. There notablity may be nothing more than that given by the show on which they appear. But if being a character on SG-1 is sufficent for notablity for Jack O'Neill, then it strikes me that it is sufficent for Kayne Gillaspie, Keith Michael, Bradley Baumkirchner, and all the rest. Jdclevenger 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A follow-up to my note above. One might argue that as main character on a series that has run for 10 years, Jack O'Neill has acheived some kind of notableness outside the context of the show. If so, one would still be hard pressed to justify the pages of Mr. and Mrs. Stoppable or Josh Mankey. These may not ring any bells for those not plugged into day-time Disney fare. The former are the parents of Kim Possible's sidekike Ron Stoppable and the later is Kim's love interest in several episodes. Again, my take is that the characters on Project Runway et.al. are in fact characters in a drama. The standards of notablity for inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on the standards for Television characters. Jdclevenger 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Take a read at this WP:POKEMON. We have have to argue for deletion of article on a per article basis. While Raymundo has been a character on a show (I would argue reality TV is hardly "reality"), he's a person in real life (which is what wikipedia is documenting). Thus our gauge for this article is WP:BIO, not WP:FICT. As is, the article makes no assertion of notability. Attempts to find notability(see above) have resulted in my conclusion that he isn't notable in his field of style or fashion. Mitaphane talk 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Need to be convenced that this needs to be deleted or kept. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NN by oodles--another pointless article...-Kmaguir1 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI noticed his presence on these shows. Why should this not be on Wikipedia? Its verifiable human knowledge. I also want to point out that the individual who nominated this article for deletion is seeking "revenge" on me for our previous interaction at Judith Butler (for which he was banned for 10 days).--Agnaramasi 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Żydokomuna[edit]

1st nom was broken and was speedy closed w/o effect on subsequent noms. My problem with this article is that it's not about the term. There are two sentences about the term, and the rest is a jumble of unstructured speculation. So why don't you so-fix-it, Crazy? Well, the term is inflammatory, implying some sort of causal connection between Jews and communism - so unless this is a bona fide, verified pejorative about which we have lots to say (e.g. Nigger), then I wouldn't propose, but in the absense of all these, my recommendation is Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am open to suggestion this should be slightly merged to History of Poland or someplace else. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever it was anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, the article was not about the "term", the article is about a certain documented and verifiable perception (or conspiracy theory, whatever) in Poland, hence encyclopedic. Of course, as any article on a controversial topic it requires fact cleanup and NPOV-watch. And by the way, there are more than "two sentences" directly on topic. `'mikka (t) 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • >Żydokomuna (Polish neologism for "Jewish communism") was an antisemitic term used to describe the conspiracy theory that the Communism in Poland was supported by Jews to a much greater extent than by the Gentile Polish population. Any Communist group which was considered dominated by Jews counted as "Żydokomuna". The term is similar to the "Judeo-bolshevism" rhetoric of Nazi Germany.<
    • >The term has been coined at the time of Polish-Soviet War, when the Bolsheviks were supported in Poland by a disproportionately large number of Jews.<
    • Nothing more about the term. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would like to notice that I slightly rephrase yours: you speak about the "term", I speak about the "topic". Term definition is for wiktionary. Wikipedia takes the issue broader. The topic in question is "Jewish overrepresentation" (which gave rise to some other "terms"). One is welcome to expand the article, e.g., with proofs that the term is a misnomer (if this is possible). `'mikka (t) 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve it if needed. That the article is not perfectly written is not a reason to delete it. --Lysytalk 06:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and research. The term, albeit not positive, is important. --Ouro 07:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improved. Referenced, and appears to be about a real historical phenomenon. Perhaps it ought to also move to something with an English language title, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stubifiy everything but the two sentences mentioned above. Jon513 06:38, 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 the entire set. (aeropagitica) 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1980[edit]

This and 25 other lists exist as Wikipedia articles, and I'm nominating all of them for deletion. I'm giving two reasons: first of all, despite the importance of KROQ, there is no special importance attached to this yearly countdown, let alone the countdown of any specific year... hundreds of radio stations make lists like this, and including them is, plainly, an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, and more importantly, this is a massive copyright violation: the list is intellectual property of KROQ and there is no claim of fair use that can be made. Let me point out that none of the 26 lists I've nominated contain any commentary about the list, they just give the list (with a basically unchanging header). The other articles are:

There is also an article, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns that is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns (2nd nomination), which is likely to be closed soon. If that article is not deleted, but these are, it should also be deleted, as it will basically be a list of redlinks. Mangojuicetalk 05:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. While it may be a major list, it's not our duty to mirror the information of other organizations, espcially given that this is infringing on intellectual property rights. --Wafulz 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom. It's the same reason why lists like the Maxim 100 get deleted as well. TJ Spyke 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the reasons given and because it is not even useful as a guide to the most popular songs in the U.S., as it is skewed by being at a rock station, people have to call-in and because it is just one radio station that only covers the L.A. area. -- Kjkolb 06:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really don't think that leaving the articles here hurts wikipedia, and it certainly improves the KROQ family of articles. As for the copyright issue, is it really their intelectual property? The articles say that the list is established by caller's votes, and unless KROQ mind controlled all those callers then the results of the list are not theirs. Copyright protects the creative expression of material, not the material itself. In my eyes that means that while the broadcast of the countdown can be copyrighted, the voting results cannot be. Any more input? --Daniel Olsen 06:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per both reasons - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lists have no encyclopedic value and no commentary or other information to place this above any other random list of songs from the last twenty-five years.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The issue not whether the articles "hurt" WP or "improves" KROQ. They are not notable, and make no claims of notability. Tychocat 10:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, this is trivia not enyclopedic material. Delete all per nom. --kingboyk 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per all the reasons I mentioned in the last two nominations. --musicpvm 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Punkmorten 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We probably need only one list of top rock songs (or any other genre) per year, and a source like Billboard Magazine or one of the industry leaders most likely has that list. It would have to be based on some objective criteria, like the most number of records sold. KROQ doesn't have that methodology as far as I can see. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Lets not set a bad precident. The last thing we need is an indiscriminate list from every radio station in the world. Resolute 19:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Agree with Resolute. This seems little more than advertising for the KROQ radio station. --Shirahadasha 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this were Billboard or some other large organization, then I'd say keep, but it's just one radio station. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as radio trivia as it sucks poop. --Nintendude message 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Listicrufts. Even Billboard Hot 100 does not appear to have the annual year-end playlist in wiki, why this station? This is not notable by a long way. Ohconfucius 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, per all similar recommendations above. --Kinu t/c 04:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not as copyright infringement in this case but as simply unencyclopedic. We can link to the lists or make excerpts in the main KROQ article if necessary. 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nae'blis (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#The Macaca/monkey incident. While this is a different article than that discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.R. Sidarth, the issue of notability is the same. The relevant content of each of the articles with respect to notability is the same. -- Samir धर्म 07:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth[edit]

An article on the same subject was listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.R. Sidarth. Essentially, the subject is only notable because of an incident involving George Felix Allen whereby he was called a pejorative term. He received fifteen minutes of fame for the incident — and ten minutes more for an essay (sort of) regarding the incident — but that doesn't make him notable enough to have an Wikipedia article all to his lonesome. -- tariqabjotu 06:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article you cited did not go through full AfD, so the fact that it was listed has no bearing. Besides, the redirect to George Allen doesn't really even mention the whole issue, as it is given more detail at Virginia United States Senate election, 2006. So it's not even that good of a merge/redirect and a clumsy solution in my opinion. For now, I'm making the redirect at least point to the new article while we slog through this AfD.--Rosicrucian 06:24, 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) 23:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addictive 247 Games[edit]

Blatant spam, prod contested. MER-C 06:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why isn't there a CSD for this. Aplomado talk 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, it's so irritating to have to prod it, have the spammer remove the prod and it ends up here with a five day deletion "debate" when it should be shot on sight. Various attempts to add a relevant CSD have been shot down on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I've been admonished by various admins for trying to speedy these articles. MER-C 06:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. Clayoquot Sound 07:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also fails WP:CORP, no multiple non-trivial third-party articles about the firm. Only 340 total Google hits, mostly game listings, and only 76 distinct Ghits. If the point is that the company is new, I will note per WP:NOT that WP is not a newspaper. Tychocat 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no verifiable, third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 13:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement. JIP | Talk 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I guess I shouldn't mention WP:SNOWBALL? ~Marblespire 03:49, 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) 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalophobia[edit]

del nonnotable joke neologism. No reputable references that "fear of belly buttons" exists. `'mikka (t) 06:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN (it's up for speedy deletion under CSD A1). Made me laugh. MER-C 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps it's obtained some element of colloquial use, but Merriam-Webster and Dorland's Medical Dictionary do not list it -- Samir धर्म 07:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, no even on http://phobialist.com. --Daniel Olsen 07:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neo, dicdef. Tychocat 10:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable joke neologism, not funny enough for BJAODN. JIP | Talk 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete No such phobia, as it says in the article, but references to it appear across the internet and there should be an article pointing out the fact that it is NOT a phobia appearing in DSM-IV and is in fact, a made up word. Cypherzero0
    • The above appears to be using non-notability as proof of notability. JIP | Talk 16:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Across the internet" is a wild exaggerration: 58 unique google hits. I understand your concern, but wikipedia is a collection of things that are known (to someone trustable) or unknown but widely discussed (in reputable sources). Please read WP:NOT, WP:CITE, WP:V. `'mikka (t) 17:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken and agreed with, Delete Cypherzero0
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Brrr... This discussion has triggered another bout of aibohphobia for me. -- Geo Swan 23:07, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skadee[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; a Google search turned up just their Myspace and a few blog-type sites. Crystallina 06:59, 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) 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mingleville[edit]

Delete per WP:WEB, deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if it stays, this seems to be an article which could attract all manner of jokers, so it'd need to be watched carefully. BigHaz 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT a free host.--Jersey Devil 07:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as prodder. MER-C 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like complete nonsense Ben 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 22:13, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Wrestling Federation[edit]

Non-notable Wrestling promotion. See creator's contributions here. Article is obviously an ad. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ad that doesn't show notability.--Jersey Devil 07:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be speed deleted then, under A7. TJ Spyke 07:53, 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) 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catawissa Bottling Company[edit]

nn company UnixV 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, old-time bottler that shows no sign of meeting WP:CORP. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Awyong. Being one of 6 Moxie bottlers does not make it notable. Being the first in PA to obtain a bottling license makes it marginally less notable. It appears to be an old but purely local concern. Nothing in WP:CORP which points to keeping it. Even if we were to waive WP:V, the company's website has few claims to its place in history. Ohconfucius 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.-Kmaguir1 05:54, 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) 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//GnU[edit]

WP:OR, WP:NN. UnixV 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 08:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — 381 hits on Google doesn't really make it that notable Deon555talkReview 09:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Any relevent info can be placed in the .hack article. Thε Halo Θ 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above - Blood red sandman 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just did some quick googling and it doesn't seem this is a fan comic: so its probably an official comic of the long-running .hack franchise. This alone makes it notable. If anyone has any information to suggest otherwise, please post it, because obviously I don't have much information on this subject. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It does seem to be an official part of the .hack franchise (see here, here, and assorted other places not meeting WP:RS), but I can't seem to find anything that does meet WP:RS, and the Google results are unimpressive (3,030 total, many of which are about GNU software rather than this) - makomk 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To me it sounds like this is a case of "all the good sources are probably in Japanese," a very common occurance. Personally, if reliable sources can't be found, I'd support stubbing this article off (as obviously there are reliable sources for basic information such as the author and name of the manga). However, deleting the article would be silly, as at least some information can be sourced. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any part of .hack is likely notable enough to be in a list or something. Merging, redirecting, etc do not require deletion. Kotepho 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, what can be verified, other then the scanlation group? This article doesn't cite anything and Google is only giving two hits, neither of which I would call solid. And to counter Shikari's argument, Google does include foreign language websites. And previous .hack titles have always been romanized instead of using kanji, so they should turn up in even a simple Google search. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ok, I did a Japanese language search, but it still doesn't look promising. Almost all of the hits appear to be from forums, blogs, or other forms of message boards. I can't even find anything on the official .hack website. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:20, 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 (nom withdrawn) Eluchil404 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active shooter[edit]

Ok. The first paragraph is a dicdef. Only cite is that the EPSO defines what an active shooter is. Does not show the term as being relevant to any other LEO departments. Second paragraph is a list of "active shooter incidents"...which technically would include any situation when police arrived on scene for a shooting. That happens daily around the world. Further, I believe it includes situations in which the shooter had ceased firing (whether through suicide or lack of ammo, or other reasons) before police arrived on scene. Third paragraph discusses "changes in police response" as related to Columbine, which belongs in the Columbine article. Basically it's an article looking to define a term that is not uniformly used throughout law enforcement agencies, and each individual paragraph would very easily strengthen it's own article elsewhere. Further, Spree killer already fits the article. There's also a picture on the page with no caption, I believe it's one of the Columbine shooters. I haven't looked into the copyright status of it, but it could be an issue. I'm all for SWAT related articles: I heavily maintain SWAT, but this one is unnecessary, redundant, and feels like random unrelated paragraphs slapped together. I withdraw my nomination of this. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator. (reposting this here, due to length of nomination) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, not a nom yet - I am reluctant to disagree with ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! since I am aware of his credentials and history. However, I do feel the need to point out this discussion should be carried out in terms of WP policy and guideline - while I agree with many of his points (yeah, it's not my best writing), nothing is shown to violate WP:NOT, WP:V and so on. For instance, I don't know where the picture came from, my bad, but I didn't post it and that's not a reflection on the article. Can the nom be restated? I am fully willing to complete the process, however it goes, but I would want the discussion to be within WP policy. Tychocat 09:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swatjester appears to be saying that this is original research, a new synthesis of information and an explication of a new concept that has not yet been acknowledged beyond its coiners, and a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. To counter the charge that this is original research, cite sources to show that that is an acknowledged list of active shooters and not just something that a Wikipedia editor made up, cite sources to show that more than just a single Sheriff's Office acknowledges this concept, cite sources to show that the change in police response is specifically because of this concept, and cite sources to show that this specific concept has been discussed in the CSM. Uncle G 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per nom unless, as Tychocat said, the nominator clarifies the nomination to explain why the article is "unneccessary". If it's just "redundant, and feels [ramdomly] slapped together," that is a case for rewrite (or redirection to the article it's redundant with), not deletion.Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup— Must agree that the article can be improved per nomination and previous discussion. If we deleted every Wikipedia that is not terribly well written, we'd be significantly smaller. Williamborg (Bill)
  • Keep. Cleanup needed, so is citation, but not deletion. Batmanand | Talk 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clarification: The specific policy I'm citing, is WP:NOR, and to a lesser extent the "neologism" rule (can't remember the name). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article quotes the Minneapolis PD manual, which uses the phrase "active shooter". I quote, per everyone's comment, the El Paso Sheriff's Department as well. A general Google gets 27,800 hits, with 795 distinct hits, and many of those hits are Powerpoint training sessions on active-shooter response, or academies offering training in such (such as the North American SWAT Training Association, which I did not quote but linked to an article about same). So, I have three sources which use the phrase "active shooter". Make fun of my writing all you want, I'm embarrassed and will fix the darn thing; but, I have to disagree with the WP:NOR. Tychocat 09:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments regarding WP:NOR. I'm the contributor, and I'm embarrassed to be seen in public with the article, but all it needs is some rewriting. I will fix it. Tychocat 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not making fun of your writing. The grammar is fine. It just seems like there isn't enough substance to justify the article, nor that it's in common usage outside those 3 PDs. I've never even HEARD of the North American SWAT Training Association, nor has my team leader. Are you sure that's an actual, credible training organization (essentially a LEO version of those "learn street fighting techniques" scam companies,? I mean...it sounds like a mallninja organization.) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's okay, I know it's badly written. I own that, and was trying to make the point humorously. But as I was pointing out with the Google results, I think there's more than enough material to make it an acceptable article. Also, please keep in mind there are limits to how many citations and references are really necessary in a scholarly article. I will change the NASTA link because you raise the question and I have a choice of many others to reference. Tychocat 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tychocat, would you be accept me withdrawing this AfD nomination on the condition that you do the rewrite and make it up to par, and throw in a bunch of cites? If you'd like my help with it just ask. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, no problemo. I'll beg the indulgence of a few days (the real world demands my attention, sigh). Tychocat 14:56, 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) 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eka's portal[edit]

nn websites. Hol2006 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Rather disgusting non notable fetish site, certainly not famous like goatse. Link to related fetishes on wikipedia discovers uncited sources all over. Who wants to bet this is a practical joke ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also advertising, as writer indicates this is to announce their new URL after being deleted by Yahoo. WP is not a web directory, and the fact the writer is Ekamei suggests vanity. Alexa ranking is down about 151,000, and Google shows only 35 distinct Ghits out of only 2500 for "eka's portal". Tychocat 11:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I smell pork. Delete per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above --Nigel (Talk) 12:55, 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 Deville (Talk) 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FutisForum[edit]

nn forum sites. Hol2006 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional weak keep If links can be cited to finnish media criticism, then it's noteworthy. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the Fininish media criticism claim, which is the only tenable assertion of notability this has per WP:WEB, is properly sourced. Otherwise reads like an advert for one two non-notable forums. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep, otherwise delete, per both of the above. JIP | Talk 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V; a sourced and rewritten version can be uploaded later is it is truly notable (which seems unlikely). Eluchil404 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above unless media criticisms are verified. Heimstern Läufer 23:07, 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) 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Web Directory[edit]

Advertisement article for a non-notable web directory. Google hits for (link:www.fairwebdirectory.com) = 386. Alexa traffic ranking = 66,359. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:54, 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 CSD G4 - repost of page deleted with consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Review: Ruth The Biblical Ghana. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE BIBLICAL GHANA[edit]

Two reasons for this nom:

  • Borders on nonsense due to complete lack of context. Reads like a clip from an essay or something.
  • Looks like a copy+pase CV to me, though I cannot verify this. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay. Gazpacho 09:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. The author may have intended something to be made of this, but I can't figure it out. BigHaz 09:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a essay trying to match phases of Ghana's history to Biblical events. Totally OR. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:38, 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) 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games based on webcomics[edit]

It seems kind of rediculous to have such a narrow list around. 2 entries, and I doubt there will be many more. We don't need lists of every combination of things, since WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:12, 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. 1ne 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mumpsy[edit]

Vanity page for a non notable artist Nuttah68 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, and, as MER-C says, CSD A7. Thε Halo Θ 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely not a speedy candidate. The subject has toured, and released an album. Failure of WP:MUSIC is a good argument for deletion, but is not relevant to the speedy process. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was ansure of how that perticular tour would affect the CSD. The article makes it sound like he was a supporting act. Does this, seeing as you know more about this than me, effect the CSD? And, I'm ashamed to admit, I also thought that the CD was self published :( Thε Halo Θ 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting act and a CD can be (but isn't necessarily, seeing as he fails WP:MUSIC an' all) enough for AfD to support, depending on other factors such as the phase of the moon. As such, I'm sure you'll agree it's inappropriate to speedy delete an article under A7 if there's a possibility that AfD will keep? As for self-published, if you look at the label's website, that's pretty clearly not the case. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the help, fuddlemark :). Thε Halo Θ 10:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also fails WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO. Article created by "the wunderkind" Mumpsy. Records on an obscure record label which has perhaps 9 musical artists signed, and nothing in the Record label's own shop. Amazon returns zero relevant hits for "The Exuberance of Peachtree" and "Mumpsy". Ohconfucius 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominate The Exuberance of Peachtree for deletion as non notable album by NN artist.Ohconfucius 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to refrain from using AfD jargon; these subpages can be read by anyone, including the original author of the article, who will often be a newbie and thus unfamiliar with the bloody stupid terms we've come up with here to confuse outsiders. It's impolite to throw about things like "NN". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begging your pardon, I think it's a bit patronising to avoid jargon within the community. Most wikipedians have the intelligence or education to look up phrases, acronyms and words which they don't know. After all, that's what wiki is for. In my above nomination, the term "not notable" was already used, and NN was used to avoid duplication. Honorable though your intentions may be, I somehow don't think your idea will catch on, as it is not very practical for everyone used exclusively the longhand form of commonly used wiki terms. You yourself have used "AfD" and "A7", for example, within the scope of this discussion. Ohconfucius 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Alright kids. The subject at hand is over deleting this page, OK? As author of this page, I'd rather have the out and out over whether or not something is "jargon" or "offensive" any day. --Mumpsy 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP per WP:MUSIC, Music and ensembles, bullet #7. According to various sources (Orlando Weekly sited), Mumpsy is considered the best accousic pserormer in the Orlando music scene. Also... in response to the comment from Ohconfucius, his CD IS indeed sold in the label's shop. This doesn't change anything for wiki, but what's written on this page should still correct. xo Tony
  • KEEP I've got more and more information to add on a daily basis. I've just added national and internationally known artists that have asked Mumpsy to open up for them when playing shows in Orlando and elsewhere. Also, with the start of 2007, the new release on Post Records will be distributed nationwide. With that, the album should also be charting. Mumpsy 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Doesn't seem to quite meet WP:MUSIC. The fact that the author appears to be the subject also creates problems with WP:AUTO. Heimstern Läufer 23:16, 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 all.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Nurse Investigator[edit]

Non-notable profession, article started by Rnmarket whose sole mission on Wikipedia is apparently to advertise for his legal nurse marketing company of the same name. I am also nominating the following articles, also started by the same person, in this AfD:

Note that yet another of this user's creations, Veronica Castellana, was speedied as CSD A7; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Castellana. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all neologistic adspam. And thanks to the nominator for the amusing message on my talk page in regards to this nomination. =) Powers T 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Good work getting all these. Thε Halo Θ 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom. wikipediatrix 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, crypto-spam from a consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. IceCreamAntisocial 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Resolute 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.-- danntm T C 00:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I abhor spam and this certainly looks like it. However, is it an accredited course and recognised at all? As a foreigner I can't tell, but the article contains the assertion legitimately use the term 'legal nurse investigator' and the term certification course. Is "certification course" accredited by Government or some professional body? It doesn't look like it from their own site but I just thought it is perhaps worth pausing to check. For example, I know that there is certification for Software testing, articles on two of the accreditations, ISEB and the newer ISTQB, would seem to me to be legitimate articles. I am not sure that that would pass the test I have set, that is they are not government accredited, but I think they are verifiable externally, for example accreditation is called for in job advertisements [7]. Shouldn't that be the test? External refs to the LNI profession are few and far between. I googled up only one: [8]--Arktos talk 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the profession Legal nurse consultant exists and we have an article on it. The not-for-profit American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants is the membership organization for the profession the USA. It is a profession that requires no certification, as the AALNC FAQ page states. The subject of this debate is a for-profit company marketing a product to registered nurses that they do not really need. A "Legal Nurse Investigator" is just a legal nurse consultant who has paid large sums of money to take this course and get its expensive and unnecessary "diploma", and membership in the inappropriately named "National Alliance of Certified Legal Nurse Consultants" is limited only to people who have paid large sums of money to take this course. SPAM! IceCreamAntisocial 02:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm - I do understand and am not trying to be obtuse but there are many professions or vocations for which you do not HAVE to get accreditation. Accountancy is one, software testing is another. You have to pay sums of money if you choose accreditation. We do have articles on those occupation's accrediation. I think the test is probably whether the accreditation is recognised elsewhere. Otherwise the same argument could apply to CPA. Whether or not the training adds value, is needed, ... is POV - is it recognised outside should be the test.--Arktos talk 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just AfD'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal nurse consultant, for similar reasons.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is the ultimate intersection of CSD A7 and WP:WEB: an article on a group of people protesting against some non-notable Web forum's malcontents. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Revolutionary Coalition of the Coral Forum[edit]

Sounds like total nonsense. Given extenal link does not work. Shushruth 10:19, 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)  16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luthor Harkon[edit]

Either slander or the subject is non-existent. Bobby1011 10:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable CVG character. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I was not aware that this was a character when I nominated. Bobby1011 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non notable. Resolute 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a WHFB character guideline? If not, I say Keep until one has been constructed. --Falcorian (talk) 15:45, 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)  15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling effect[edit]

Patent Nonsense--Rjstott 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been around a long time with the quote references tag as I can find no verification of this effect anywhere. The following is from the talk page:

"This transition is known as deposition, see Deposition (meteorology). It is difficult to understand this effect in relation to steam engines or aeroplanes. Nothing is found using Google in relation to this phrase!--Rjstott 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)"

  • Delete, not exactly Patent nonsense as Wikipedia uses the term, but not sourced either. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not patent nonsense, as explained above. It is comprehensible. What the article is is unverifiable. It cites no sources, and neither you nor I can find any sources. The relevance to steam engines might be because of Robert Stirling, inventor of the Stirling engine, but I cannot find any sources that make such a connection except for 1 patent application that is actually talking about the Stirling cycle when it talks about the "Stirling effect". There are a lot of people out there who cannot spell "sterling", incidentally. Delete. Uncle G 12:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— A "vapour condenses straight into a solid through convection", give me a break. I agree with Uncle G that this must be confusedly taken from Stirling cycle. Sublimation and deposition are well understood. A quick review of text books in physics and engineering provide no mention of Stirling effect in that context. Unless the author can provide a reference, at best this is confusion and at worst a gag. Delete it - Williamborg (Bill) 17:45, 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 MERGE into Myth (computer game). Herostratus 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Myth (computer game)[edit]

Non-notable fancruft that fails the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" criteria. Also, note (despite the confusing title) that the article is not referring to a computer game called "Community of Myth", but to the fan community of Bungie's Myth series.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedied by me, but reopening - if anything, the Myth World Cup appears to be an assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • keep. This article is about the fanbase of the game. I wrote a lead explaining why the fanbase of this game is a notable phenomenon. Gimmetrow 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A dedicated fanbase that writes mods and maps and such does not make the commuinity itself notable. The article is little more than a linkfarm, and Wikipedia is NOT a free webspace provider. Parts of the article are also nothing more than a game guide. Resolute 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the fanbase is not that it makes maps, but that it has completely taken over actual development of a commercial game, without compensation. This is a very notable phenomenon, even if some of the current content of the article is cruft. Gimmetrow 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, most of the content is cruft, and that the fanbase has taken over development can easily be mentioned in the articles on the games themselves. I still do not buy that this article needs to exist. Resolute 23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game is notable because it won some awards, was innovative, had a long sales run, etc. The community is notable because it took over the software development from the franchise owners. When this was happening (with signing of non-disclosure agreements, etc, circa 2002-2003), it was covered in the general gaming community and considered a notable event, even unique, among commercial games. This point is perhaps obscured somewhere in the dev histories and lists of groups, but this is AfD, not a FA review. I'm not defending the cruft - for instance the section on development history is probably impossible to follow except to one of the developers or core beta testers. Gimmetrow 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whoever wrote this article has waaay too much time on his hands. Still it is encyclopedic as covering an important phenomenon in the gaming world and conveying interesting information. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While many online communities develop their own slang and in-jokes, the Myth Community is fairly unique in the way it has so many cultural divides. Online communities (such as World of Warcraft) might have server-division but nothing comes close to the Marius/PlayMyth, WWII/Reg/AvA, rank/un-rank divides while retaining major interaction. Also one of the older online communities outside of the RPG world to still have major tournaments that get advertising by the original creator (Bungie) and even sponsorship (MindscapeFX and a 'clothing company' just sponsored a small Myth II tournament'.
Game development being taken over is one thing. But running two major (they can both handle over 1200 players if need be) gaming servers, an annual tournament which since 2003 has had approx 32 teams of 10ish players, UPDATES to the game (not just higher res and compatibility with modern computers) including huge modifications to actual gameplay, graphics and unit behaviour in Myth III, the fact that three games are being maintained (most communities like this are just the one) and the vast depth of the culture are what makes it important. We can clean this thing up a lot, but keep the core of it. The main Myth page was just getting too bogged down with really note-able things about the game that wouldn't go anywhere else. Several people suggested a new page and it is a lot better for it.
Despite having written a lot of it, I'll admit the development history section could possibly be deleted, or certainly summarise it in a smaller amount of space (that's looking back on it, I didn't hate it at the time). (The Elfoid 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Prune considerably. Delete at least everything in the "Language of Myth" section, condense "general hubs" to one paragraph, delete everything in MWC section and everything else related to MWC except one sentence linking to the main article, to avoid redundancy. I would also severely trim the mapmaking section, but don't feel impartial enough to do it myself. Argyrios 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a general trim to give an idea of what level of detail is appropriate. Please review. That same sort of harsh treatment needs to be given to the mapmaking section, but someone else needs to do it. Would also appreciate dev history trim, as indicated above. Argyrios 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth making an entire page for map-making and thus remove it from here entirely. Just an idea...(The Elfoid 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Many gaming communities produce maps. While some idea of the mapmaking aspect of the Myth community is interesting background information, I don't think a separate article on it is a good idea. One article on the community should be sufficient. Gimmetrow 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not defending everything in the article, but the Myth community itself is very notble as explained by other respondants. Ace of Sevens 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Servers and Community hubs should merge really as both main servers ARE hubs. A little more information on them could be used.
Development history could be put into a table perhaps (I can't do this as I don't know how)? Along the top you could have developers (Bungie, Mumbo Jumbo, Project Magma, MythDevelopers and Flying Flip) and along the side the list of games and map-making tools. So each block would list all patches that company releaased. For reference material:
Bungie created Myth: The Fallen Lords v1, v1.1, v1.2 and v1.3, Myth II: Soulblighter v1, v1.1, v1.2, v1.2.1, v1.3 and v1.3.1, Fear/Loathing v1, v1.1 and v1.2 I believe. I may be wrong on those.
Mumbo Jumbo were responsible for Myth III: The Wolf Age v1, v1.0.1 and v1.0.2. Their Vengeance work I know nothing about.
Project Magma (in association with MythDevelopers) created Myth II: Soulblighter v1.3.2, v1.4, v1.4.1, v1.4.2 and v1.4.3. Project Magma on their own created Myth II v1.5, v1.5.1 and are working on v1.6. Fear v1.2.3 Updates to Fear/Loathing were made to all Magma patches but Mac support was only added in Fear v1.6 and Loathing v1.5.1. Their only other work was Myth: The Fallen Lords v1.5.
MythDevelopers created Myth: The Fallen Lords v1.4 and v1.4.5 (v1.4.5 was Mac only), Myth II v1.4.4 and Myth III: The Wolf Age v1.1, v1.1.1, v1.1.2, v1.2. They also did Vengeance work of some sort I believe.
Flying Flip (a second incarnation of the core developers from MythDevelopers...work could be listed together perhaps) created Myth III: The Wolf Age v1.3, v1.3.1 and are working on a new patch currently, or considering it. Ballistic, v1, v1.0.1 and v1.0.2 were released by Flying Flip but rather than being a new program it is an update of Vengeance and could be listed as part of Vengeance's dev history as opposed to on its own.
Whatever, someone do something with this and it can be made better I'm sure. (The Elfoid 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Obvious strong delete - Unverifiable original research/no reliable sources. Wickethewok 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should point out this has had industry media coverage in Gamasutra, which is the premiere industry publication. (Meaning it's aimed at developers, not customers.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace of Sevens (talk • contribs)
Yes, that link is in the lead. Gimmetrow 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources for the Myth Community are from websites that really have not got much more credibility than myself as a member of it. Many people within the community are watching over this, and regularly it gets scruitinized (since I've written the most I usually handle complaints from the community) and I'd say all server admins, map-makers and tournament organisers etc. who could be contacted have been. I can gather quotes proving all this if I must I guess but to be honest its not easy to find everyone - but its as accurate as it can be and based on the collective opinion of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs)
Reliable sources are external, news reports. Doing personal interviews is "original research", which is not for wikipedia. Gimmetrow 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what about original websites and things? Myth Community, though noteworthy in many ways has been fairly self-contained and not publicized since around the end of 2004 because the growth of PlayMyth.net's side of things ended after Myth World Cup 2004 and at that point the PlayMyth decline began (from mid-2002 onwards the community had been growing again). What about non-personal interviews e.g. official statements? It is impossible to find just about anything relating to Myth that classifies as reliable since everyone goes on aliases. 'some guy called wight slayer' is of very little guaranteed proof to anyone but I can safely guarantee the Myth Community would keep this authenticated and accurate since that's what they do. This is one of those horrible situations where politically correct rules don't quite work and things should be bent...not that I expect it to work.(The Elfoid 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep but edit heavily The content here is quite thorough and probably way too wide-ranging for a single page. Most of the sections on this page could be condensed to a small paragraph with the deleted text relegated to it's own article. As for attribution, as Elfoid pointed out it is difficult to 'prove' most of the facts presented here since most of the original sources are websites that are no longer active, but as someone who has followed and been active in the myth community for several years, and who maintains an archival site of myth articles and content I have not found any major errors in the content on this page. Of course the question someone raised of whether so much detail about a particular computer game even belongs on Wikipedia is a seperate (and valid) question. (Vinylrake 12:49, 01 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Delete This article is way too huge, and most of it is not notable and should not be included on wikipedia. However, there might be something salvagable from this article, cut back heavily or simply delete. Altair 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not worthy of an article. The phenomenon is interesting, and some information from the article might go well on the page for the game itself. Heimstern Läufer 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now map-making has its own page its use has been lost significantly. As has the shrinking of Dev history. I say keep, but there's useful things we can put in here (The Elfoid 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. Being interesting does not a notable article make. Mention it on the series page, sure, but not on its own page and in such ludicrous depth. GarrettTalk 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (re-voted below)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't entirely understand the last three delete comments. This is a sub-article of the main Myth article, repeats little content, and seems well below "ludicrous depth". If an "interesting" and uniquely notable event in game software development does not merit a short article, then surely the content should be merged, not deleted. Gimmetrow 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I chopped both the Myth Development and Myth Mapmaking sections of the page each down to a fairly coherent, if not particularly well written paragraph. The article itself is greatly reduced in size and scope.

ps. It is difficult to balance criteria for existence that contradict each other. ex. "This is nothing but a link farm, delete it" vies with "Delete this article, there is no verification for the content" Vinylrake 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone with the ability PLEASE put the dev history into a table for me. I just can't do tables. Once its done I can tinker with it but I can't get the basics right. I am in the process of getting more details on the matter. A list of Myth Community projects (MythAlice, recent news articles, a note on the playmyth/marius magma/mythdev wars that almost broke the community apart would be noteworthy too in a little more depth - its rare for a community with such closely knit groups almost destroy itself when money's not involved. (The Elfoid 11:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge - I suggest that the article be merged into the article about Myth, the game. This is clearly something that should be grouped with the game's article. Kopf1988 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriately. This is what my previous vote was really meaning, so I'm re-casting as merge. The community getting permission (and source code?) to continue developing is unique and thus pretty noteworthy, but I still don't think it's noteworthy enough to have its own page. [[User:Master Thief

Garrett|Garrett]]Talk 06:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I go with merge. When we made this page more was on it. Now map-making stuff has its own page, so does MWC and so do Myth II Tournaments. Without that it lost a lot of its value and a merge is fine. (The Elfoid 13:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phill Ryu[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO, non-notable, no references, also has POV problems. — Wackymacs 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although what he did might have given him media coverage that would make him notable, none of these are present in the current article. And before someone pops up in here and chimes "speedy delete CSD A7, tagged as such": no, this does not qualify for CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I can see no reason that Wikipedia would need an article on this guy. RedNitrogen 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. at most deserves 2 sentences for media coverage, but probably not even. There are hundreds of other reactionary Mac bloggers (and even some sensible ones) like Ryu, many of whom get a couple newspaper mentions now and then. --jacobolus (t) 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [9], the notability bar on Wikipedia is quite low and an accomplished person like this one who has garnered the support of powerful people in this field can have an article with no harm done. — GT 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woz is supporting a site Phill made, not Phill himself. Also, I don't believe everything Woz supports instantly becomes notable for Wikipedia. Take a good look at WP:BIO again. — Wackymacs 07:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest you take your own advice? WP:BIO is not a notability policy, and it explicitly states that failure to meet the criteria listed on that page is not itself a valid grounds for deletion. — GT 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. This article doesn't meet any of the criteria suggested there. — Wackymacs 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again.
  • This guideline is not Wikipedia policy...
  • Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included
  • This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
Thus, WP:BIO is not itself a grounds for deletion; the subject is indeed notable (unless you feel it is ordinary for people to start contests and websites that carry the support of several high profile people in the industry); lack of references and POV problems are content issues that are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. This dispells all 4 items in your nom statement. — GT 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guy runs a blog and a website where people submit software ideas. Millions upon millions of other people run websites in the world (and millions write blogs). Nothing makes this guy note worthy in an encyclopedia at the moment. Oh and...I believe guidelines are there to be used, otherwise there's no point in them. On the fact he's got "high profile" people supporting his small website, well...those people support many things, most of which haven't got articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Just because they support something doesn't mean its instantly notable, there's many other factors to notability as well. — Wackymacs 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of people write blogs, but millions of people do not write blogs that are in the top 0.01% of all blogs by traffic. And millions of people do not operate popular websites which have brought together the combined efforts of over forty of the sharpest minds in the Mac industry, including the founder of Apple himself. And whether you want to call it renown or notoriety, millions of people have not achieved a large measure of celebrity within the extremely fast-growing Mac community. Phill Ryu has accomplished unusual and notable feats, especially given his relatively young age. I don't know why people keep claiming that Ryu does not meet Wikipedia's standard for notability; even without throwing in his Apple awards and other businesses, there is not a single other person in the world who comes close to matching Ryu's profile. S.w.hull 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual and notable feats? Name them, with reliable sources from newspapers and books please. This sounds like your own opinion. Just because someone gets an Apple award that doesn't make them notable for an encyclopedia, that's one award. Let's look at the facts: Phill Ryu's site is the 58,478th most popular website in the world by traffic - however, compared to Macminute.com which ranks 32,757 - And the guy who runs MacMinute (Stan Flack) doesn't have an article, even though he runs a more popular site. As for phill's other website, Alexa.com hasn't even got traffic data for it...that's explains the popularity of that one! — Wackymacs 07:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination, a brief bit of limelight hardly qualifies for an article in WP. pbones 15:12, 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, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipin.com[edit]

nn corp/websites. Info6 11:28, 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 Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.[edit]

nn companies Eng94 11:31, 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) 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candyland (album)[edit]

and:

Info is unverfied and probably WP:HOAX Crumbsucker 11:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I found a few Ghits with the same info, the most legitimate being MTV.com. It seems more like a entertainment news item than an encyclopedia article to me but I'll say Weak Keep Dina 18:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MTV article doesn't say the follow-up album is called Candyland nor does it confirm that any of the named tracks will be even be in the album. "Wind It Up" isn't even mentioned. Everything in the wiki articles is unverifiable speculation. Crumbsucker 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as unverifiable speculation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Heimstern Läufer 23:39, 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)  15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AALO (NGO)[edit]

Very obscure organization with no proof of notability. Probably vanity and pet project. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:58, 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 tagged as copyvio of [10] and listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ameredia[edit]

Blatant attempt at Spam. Even the user who created the article has the nick Ameredia. Shamefull, awfull, retarded spam --Mecanismo | Talk 12:12, 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. The final tally as I count it was 6 for Delete, 1 for Keep, plus 2 more Keep comments by editors who have only edited the article and this deletion debate. The one non-new editor desiring Keep had no strong argument, leaving the arguments to the two new editors. While their arguments are vociferous, they are tainted, and not terribly strong anyway. "I highly doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would appreciate your accusations against LinuxDevices", whatever that's supposed to mean, is not a helpful comment. The article does consist, except for the how-to section, almost solely of glowing descriptions of alleged features unreferenced by disinterested third party material, and this is brought out in the arguments, as well as the point that, after all, a full release of the product does not yet exist. Stronger argument and more numbers = Delete. Herostratus 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndLinux[edit]

Very obscure attempt at a linux distribution. Google test lists 566 results, mainly from mailing lists and other spammable places. Very obscure, probably spam. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • [andLinux] is a real Linux distribution that runs in Windows and has even been featured on [Linux Devices] and [LWN]. I am the founder of andLinux and you are more then welcome to direct any questions about the project to my email (used during registration). The link to the home page or a google search on andLinux would show several valid links for the project. I understand your questioning a project such as this, but there are real needs for people to use Linux without coming ot of Windows. Please note that I am not sure how to answer back, so i responded here. --LordDavon | 09:25, 27 August 2006 (EST)
  • Addional response: I used your google search and note that the first link is to LWN and the second is to MadTux's andLinux download page (they test all distributions before adding). I also noted that your exclusion of the term "wiki" also excludes any page linking to its home page. Since andLinux is relatively new and named from typos found in a google search, excluding the home page will return several pages with typos. --David Solomon a.k.a LordDavon
    • The AndLinux distribution is yet to present that it has any notoriety or merit to deserve an article on an encyclopedia. The google test which I presented removes the reference to any wiki because wikis are vulnerable to spam and vanity attempts like this case. Nonetheless, without filtering out wikis, the google test laists a little over 700 hits. I'm not notable but my nickname earns more hits than that. Therefore it is easy to see that the AndLinuxdistribution is indeed very obscure and void of any notoriety. Moreover, it seems that it's article is just a pet article from the distribution's author, which is one more reason to delete it. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for self-promotion or advertising --Mecanismo | Talk 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, sounds like a very impressive Linux distro, but the article reads like an advertisement, and the distro isn't even finished yet. JIP | Talk 14:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JIP: Thank you. I have no control over the article, but I was happy when it came out positive.
  • Mecanismo: I am sure you find no fault on your part and that is just fine by me, but you really need to do your research before making statements like yours. For one, LinuxDevices may have written the article like an advertisement, but that is how they chose to write it. I like to think they were very impressed considering it was a proof of concept and the very first release. You are welcome to think however you like and following Wikipedia's own guidelines, I will continue to. Here are some things I would like to point out:
    • A wikipedia search shows 30 results of its own for LinuxDevices.
    • A LinuxDevices -wiki search returns 9,220,000 results on Google.
    • LinuxDevices is owned and operated by Ziff Davis Publishing (in the bottom right-hand corner of thier web site).
    • I highly doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would appreciate your accusations against LinuxDevices. I suggest researching a little more in the future.
    • My google search of just andLinux returns 16,900 results. Just tossing it out there. I don't mean to argue. I have seen this corrected by clearing your cookies and cache.
    • I appreciate your work with Wikipedia and am glad that people check into invalid sites, but this is not one.
    • I didn't write this wiki page, but I am very glad someone did. I do browse around the Internet just before releasing a new version to find any issues that users may have had and came across the andLinux wiki page. I am happy that someone took the time and effort to create the page and appreciate their work.
    • I am busy preparing a new version and this has set me behind long enough. Following Wikipedia's Etiquette Rules I agree to disagree. If you would like to discuss this further, we can talk in IRC. I do not believe this is the proper forum for this discussion.
    • I do not believe Wikipedia has a stance on a sites "notoriety" to be included but feel free to correct me sometime in Wikipedia's IRC.
  • Possibly we could take the relevant parts, and merge them into a "Distros" section in Cooperative Linux. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is much to merge - I can't really tell what sets this distribution apart from the others that run on colinux. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • theAuthor: Well, I wrote article. I wrote it just to express my enthusiasm about this project. I am just a user of andLinux, and I am NOT employeed @ LinuxDevices or any other relevant site.
    • @advertising: I wanted to present the benefits of it in a short and clear manner, also readable for people which did not have contact with linux before. Maybe I should have been looking harder @ the policy regarding external links. I changed the article, now there is just one external link, the one to the project homepage
    • @merging: should be further discussed, though in the distributions section, one is just told which ways there are to get it up and running...cellstorm, 14:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources given/found. Wickethewok 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wicketthework, as you are interested electronic music, I want to give you an idea of how useful andLinux could be for electronic musicians: Imgagine you are one, and you've heard about the intersting things happening regarding audio programs in Linux, e.g the exiting open source dj-mixprograms. But maybe you don't have the time to get well known with Linux, but want to try & use these programs. One easy solution could be andLinux. Your're up and runnig in just a few moments, the programs are also installed easily. Now you could combine sounds made with Linuxprograms with sounds of Windows-programs. Also, someone could also make a special andLinux distro with all relevant programs preinstalled& tuned... there are many possibilities to use andLinux.
    • @reliable sources: yes, there are few, its a one man show by now, but I think this will change. --cellstorm, 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I found it interesting.
    • WP:AGF the guy says he didn't write the article -- trust he is telling the truth, so it is not vanity. -- Geo Swan 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It just doesn't seem to be notable per WP:SOFTWARE. Heimstern Läufer 23:50, 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 Deville (Talk) 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Holden, 1st Baron Holden and Angus Holden, 3rd Baron Holden[edit]

Very obscure, no sources verified. Both articles are a pet project of User:Brian_Holden which also points towards vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They need work, but both clearly fulfill the criteria of WP:BIO. up+l+and 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The trivial fact of being an MP makes the first notable (and there's an article on JSTOR on his 1874 election campaign). Being Lord Mayor for years must have generated no end of non-trivial reporting, which would require legwork in Bradford's libraries to find. Less convinced by the other one but it probably scrapes by. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Notable enough to be in the british national portait gallery. What few google results there are confirm his date of birth and death. I would have liked some confirmation about the house of lords. If he was there, he is certainly notable. Technically this is verifiable, but no one is actually going to dig up the papers from the 1950s on account of this guy. As for vanity, the guy is dead. Family self-promotion? Probably. Irongargoyle 00:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Vote is for both, comment based on information I looked at for Angus Holder, 3rd Baron Holden only. Irongargoyle 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just technically verifiable. They're actually available online now (with subscription, but I would guess that a lot of libraries make that available). There are many other hits for "Angus Holden" and "Lord Holden" in the database. up+l+and 04:54, 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 13:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonist (band)[edit]

Garage band which just signed with a minor label. Very obscure, not notable, fails WP:BAND. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. -- Kicking222 12:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. MER-C 12:59, 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)  14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netheril[edit]

Contested prod that reeks of gamecruft. MER-C 12:57, 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 keep. »ctails!« =hello?= 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Knight (fashion designer)[edit]

Non notable reality TV show participant Nuttah68 13:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Many of the Project Runway contestants have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps those articles should be nominated for deletion all at once. -Acjelen 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's won several challenges (apparently) and could end up winning the thing. I'm not going to debate about what defines cruft, but aren't there a lot more worthy candidates than these? --Trafton 08:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm all for deleting Runway also-rans (although I don't understand why Runway is being targeted; why not Survivor or Flavor of Love or Every reality competition ever that doesn't actually include any amount of skill?), but Michael is not an also-ran. He's clearly one of the top designers on the show, and has a good chance to win. If he came in 14th, I'd say toss him; at the very worst, he'll come in 7th (and, call me a crystal baller, but I'll eat my shirt if he doesn't finish in the top three). -- Kicking222 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP he's an awesome designer...he's the first Black Male to be on Project Runway...it's momentous!

  • KEEP He's a top designer, back to back challenge winner, Tresemme winner, all around good guy and ditto to everyone else's comments above. Should do well in the industry whether he wins or not.
  • Keep He's (currently) in the top 6 and has been in the top 2 or 3 basically every week. If his work keeps up he could just as easily be in here soon as a young, up-and-coming designer regardless of the show. Whether or not he wins, he will actually be around for a while in an industry (unlike most reality show contestants). 69.203.80.93 16:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is the first African-American male designer on Project Runway. If he continues progressing at the rate he is going, he might very well have a show during Fashion Week. That would certainly make him worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, wouldn't it? He also has his own clothing line, which could certainly take off after the season has ended. I think we should wait until the final three are revealed. CarlosTheDwarf 05:32, 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)  14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess bubble[edit]

Was speedied but I figured out what it was from a Google search and moved it here. Nonnotable children's book, seems to be selfpublished, available only at bookstores in the US South, 226 unique Ghits NawlinWiki 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian" books (usually a reference to the Evangelical community in the USA) tend to be self-published because the writers and potential buyers don't trust mainstream publishers, rather than your standard vanity publishing case. Being neither American nor a member of the Evangelical community, I cannot venture an informed opinion on whether this book is an encyclopaedic subject, but I would suggest that the standard metrics (sold X copies, published by Y house) may not necessarily apply here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:35, 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)  14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of inventors killed by their own inventions[edit]

Trivia. Nobody cares. Another one of the many delete-worthy inventor/invention pages ...And Beyond! 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the contrary, this is of a kin with those articles that get Wikipedia mentions in the press alongside phrases like, "... is why Wikipedia is so great", or "In what other encyclopaedia could you find ...". It needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article answers the second question. ☺ Uncle G 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per fuddlemark. I foresee much hilarity. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs expansion per fuddlemark. This is notable, and somewhat interesting actually. — Wackymacs 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be expanded. JIP | Talk 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be expanded. Very interesting. Punkmorten 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the above reasons. --Stemonitis 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per fuddlemark. Agne 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I love it! Has great potential. --AStanhope 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile-on Keep— AStanhope loves it! I love it! There've got to be others who think this is a useful list. Heck, I might even support an appropriate neologism for THIS concept. Perhaps a sub-award to the Darwin Award, the Haman Award? Williamborg (Bill) 17:

53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Haman Award! I love it! --AStanhope 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clear criterion for inclusion; many inventions interesting in their own right. Add Guillotin when my fixed line Internet is back up. Stephen B Streater 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out Guilotin neither invented nor was killed by the guillotine - I've learned something already. Stephen B Streater 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition you can add those killed by Fluorine and Oroya Fever (Daniel Carrion) Doctor Bruno 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Fuddlemark. An interesting list, needs expansion. Marie Curie might be added. Espresso Addict 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fuddlemark. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I mean, dude. This is exactly why Wikipedia is great. Penelope D 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If nobody cares, call me a nobody. Actually, this article has a lot of great warnings to would-be inventors, and is a general commentary on some of the arrogance that some inventors display. Great page! Akradecki 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Valuable list, not likely to be found anywhere else. - Longhair 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... apart from all of the places that have copies of Brewers'. ☺ Uncle G 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep. This article is a useful reference tool as well as a one-stop guide for cases of "it seemed a good idea at the time" throughout history. Chris Buckey 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep. Yes expansion would be good but this seems worthwhile on a number of levels. At least as interesting potentially as the List of unusual deaths I feel. --Nigel (Talk) 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It looks like somebody does care. RFerreira 06:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike some lists that are effectively infinite (better to put all references in category), this has potential, though where do you draw the line? The Curie's discovered, rather than "invented" Radium, but rheir work with it killed them. Ace of Risk 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO, that indeed would qualify, and should be added. Akradecki 15:09, 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)  13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art-grind[edit]

Nonsense article which was recently the target of vandalism. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is certainly not nonsense, and being the target of vandalism is not grounds for deletion; I reverted the article to when it had content. To me, it's still a deletion candidate, as I'm unsure if it's a notable subgenre. Right now, my official stance is neutral. -- Kicking222 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - appears to be a branch of the existing deathgrind music genre. But needs verification and sources. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional Genre - This genre which the article references simply doesn't exist. It is nonsense. I support deletion. --Blackleg | Talk 14:51, 30 August 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was flagged as copyvio from [11], listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Alliance[edit]

Shameless attempt at spam --Mecanismo | Talk 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy as there's no real assertion of notability. Powers T 15:26, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrohumanoids- FICTIONAL[edit]

Nonsense attempt at compiling an obscure trivia list. --Mecanismo | Talk 14:00, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

480 seconds[edit]

Article about a high-school TV show. I'm not sure if it is notable enough, even with the students that took part, as I'm not sure of THEIR notability either. Prod removed without reason as well Wildthing61476 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removed with out reason? The horror! Let us delete this article post-haste, before this craze of removing PROD tags catches on! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made that mention because by procedure the next step for an article with the prod removed is AfD. Wildthing61476 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though: dude, a TV show created by High School students for the edification of a High School audience which ran for 5 years? Maybe this sort of thing is common in the USA (where they have 39 flavours of ice cream; maybe even more), but from my old fogey point of view it's pretty freakin' amazing, eh? If we feel the programme itself isn't worth an article in its own right, it should at least be merged into an article on the Senior High School. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strooooong delete With no disrespect to fuddle, an excellent user from the great land of Australia, TV shows produced by high schools are a dime a dozen in America. My town not only gets the public access channel run by my old high school, but the public access channels run by the high schools of two neighboring towns; this is quite common in the US. "480 Seconds"+"El Camino Real" (the name of the high school) gets a grand total of seven unique Google hits, five of which are YouTube or MySpace. Since the article is strongly POV, and Google hits show that the program is completely non-notable, it's not even worth a merge, as there's no evidence that the program (as the article claims) "has become a significant part of El Camino Real Senior High School history." -- Kicking222 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, a brief mention in the high school article does no harm. Powers T 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Oppose Merge. It fails WP:V, so it doesn't seem like it should be added to another article. Good (or in the case of highschools, acceptable) articles should not have bad (or unverifiable) information lumped into them. Irongargoyle 16:51, 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 Deville (Talk) 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asturian cinema[edit]

Extremelly obscure subject, possible original research. Google test lists two and eight hits. --Mecanismo | Talk 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep— Not original research. Note that Cine asturianu is an article on the Wiki-site for our Asturian and Leonese Wiki-brethren. My Spanish is poor enough so that I have trouble with even that, much less the Asturian and Leonese article. But it is clear that it is at least locally noteworthy—the article indicates that hall itself dates back to the beginning of the 20th century (well actually the end of the 19th, but clearly not for cinema at the time) and that the festival is a recent invention to help offset the impact of television. I'll add the interwiki link and someone with greater proficiency than mine can make the translation. Williamborg (Bill) 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited the Asturian cinema article, pulling some of the material across from the Asturian article, to put its significance into better perspective. After working on it a very small time (my command of Asturian is an extrapolation of a weak understanding of Spanish) I'm convinced that there is an important vein of articles missing in the English Wikipedia, that the cinema is not just a cinema, it is a symbol for successionists, and that deletion would be a serious mistake. One wonders how many other articles I've supported throwing in the trash because I did too little research to understand why someone took the trouble to put up on Wiki. Williamborg (Bill) 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is ironic that you should mention research. Wikipedia, in English or in any other language, is not a source. For all that we know, ast:Cine asturianu could be a complete fiction. It cites no sources at all. It is not as if we never have hoaxes in the English language Wikipedia, after all. The Nihilartikel episode should be enough of a cautionary table about trusting what other Wikipedias have articles on. Please look outside of Wikipedia for sources. Uncle G 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appeciate your cautionary comment. The thought did cross my mind. I "googled" Cine asturianu and found 1,360 hits; many appeared consistent with the article. So I felt on moderately safe ground. And I did link to other Wikipedia pages. And further, Google is hardly a primary source (or even a decent secondary source in many cases) so finding it there simply means someone posted it there. Not being proficient in the language, there would be value in having someone assure that this is not complete ficiton. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:14, 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 keep. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto[edit]

Nonsense, silly disambiguation article --Mecanismo | Talk 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Huh? I don't see what's so silly about it... — Wackymacs 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you consider me incivil if I just said "oh, bollocks"? If not: "oh, bollocks!" If so: I disagree with the stated nomination reason. Disambiguation pages exist to point readers to articles they could conceivably have been looking for in stumbling across the page, and this one performs that task as well as any other. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yep, I'm with them. It's as legit a disambig page as any other. -- Kicking222 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above - Blood red sandman 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, legitimate disambig page. JIP | Talk 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's nothing wrong with this page, not silly, not nonsense. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pile on" Keep (Wikipedia may not use votes to make determinations, but if I were voting I'd vote in full agreement with most of the discussion above.) Williamborg (Bill) 15:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can't see any nonsense. Nuttah68 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the ease of someone who types "Auto" in the search box and isn't aware that there are other meanings of the word. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff White Motors[edit]

Very well-done page for Welsh exotic-car dealer but despite respectable 5,170 Google hits I still don't see anything that passes WP:CORP. Daniel Case 14:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete— Will watch and might change vote conditioned on expansion — Wow, that's the best written article for an automobile dealer I've ever read. But that's hardly the basis for retention. And one can't help but be interested in how an autodealer gets 5,170 Google hits. As you scroll through the various hits, you recognize that the article is nowhere near as extensive as it could be. If someone went to the trouble of showing a dominant presence in sports (for example), then Jeff White Motors might make the threshold of notability. Williamborg (Bill) 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well, unless some assertion of notability surfaces. I also don't see anything obvious in the google hits that could let it meet WP:CORP, and there's 0 usenet hits. Also, it's not the best auto dealer article written, see Cal Worthington and Sytner Group. Personally, I think a single used car dealership is almost never going to meet notability criteria. --Interiot 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi it was not supposed to be the best article ever written I am a good writer this is why it is ok. It was supposed to put a popular Welsh businessman and company on the map so to speak. I'm sorry but if this article does not meet criteria then I am very surprised at some of the rubbish that gets posted on wiki e.g such as Wakigama hoshima yuri was a ninja in anime Aaaaaaah! monsters for example. And that is allowed as an article? I thought wikipedia was supposed to venture across all boundaries and aspects of human life for 'the sum of all knowledge'. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on I got over 8,000 google hits and he is a major sponsor in sports- this meets the criteria of a football league. I am sure I have even seen the company on billboards in top FA Cup games.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said on your talk page, you are confusing the criteria for sports clubs and teams under WP:CORP with that for companies themselves. The only one I can see this possibily meeting is multiple non-trivial media coverage not generated by the company itself. You'd do well to try to find this. Daniel Case 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a single car dealership - he has a number of branches throughout Wales and one in Bristol I think.
I'm pleased to see you (Ernst Stavro Blofeld) support your work strongly. I'm a pretty strong inclusionist; I read each article with the premise that it should be saved if it can be. You write well enough that we want more of your work.
As to this article, what would change my mind is something compellingly broader than just a big dealership or even a cluster of dealerships. Biggest in the nation, if true & verifiable, would get my support. Or something related to how they got all those Google hits; they seem to be very active in supporting racing and otehr sports activities. But without your excellent writing, I'd not even have given this article a chance.
The nice thing about Wikipedia is we can change policy if it is wrong. Take a look at WP:CORP. If you can improve it by identifying other reasons for notability, please do.
Regardless of whether this article survives or not, keep up the excellent writing. Wikipedia can use more talent like yours - Williamborg (Bill) 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless we got some proper references such as well-known newspapers or something that mention the company in articles and stories. I don't think it meets the notability tests. — Wackymacs 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above reasons. Would set a very bad precedent. Besides, it's hardly well written, rather like a small tribute to Mr. White than an encyclopedic article. Bravada, talk - 01:17, 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 Deville (Talk) 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petty ireland[edit]

Apparently Lucy-marie made up a state in Ireland so that Image:Petty.gif can be used in an article and won't be deleted as an orphaned fair use image. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please follow this link as it a database of from places aroound the world and petty is mentioned as a place in Ireland http://www.heraldry.ws/p/index3.html --Lucy-marie 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say anywhere on that site that it's a state in Ireland though... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a list of family names. Petty is not a state in Ireland.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then i have been mistaken it is the coat of arms of a family in Ireland and not a state in Ireland i will edit that then.--Lucy-marie 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OK, it's a family name. And...? -- Kicking222 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no purpose as an article.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete; probably even qualifies for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7) now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have changed my mind delete the page but incorporate the image with William Petty as it was his family's coat of arms. If that is done please go ahead and delete the page.--Lucy-marie 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep—There certainly is such a place in Ireland (see the William Petty article and articles on his relatives mention of Petty estates, which comprises a geographic area noteworthy by Wiki practice). However putting an article up with no further information than a coat of arms is inappropriate. So my vote of keep is conditioned on adding enough substance to the article to allow us to figure out on a map where Petty is; after all we are an encyclopedia. Williamborg (Bill) 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, there is no place in Ireland called Petty. Petty estates merely refers to land and property owned by the Petty family. Nuttah68 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed to conditional keep same reasons as above but now that image has ben deleted the only condition of my delteion has been blown out of the water i think that it was inapropriate for the removal of the Image.--Lucy-marie 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image wasn't deleted, I just removed it from a couple of user pages per WP:FUC #9. It is still used in this article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the image (heraldry) is appropriate if linked to the Petty family—which one must suspect it is. If you can establish this, and if there isn't a copyright violation in using the image (probably not if it is old enough) then you can restore the image. Williamborg (Bill) 15:27, 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 - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vindhyachal House[edit]

Non notable student hostel. PROD removed by an editor. I am also nominating the following related pages because they were prodded simultaneously and for same reason:

— Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not particularly notable dormitories. Wickethewok 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -The Dormitory has stood since the ceation of the institute and is over 50 years old.It has been home to over 20,000 students in these years. The page is neatly done, and considering the importance of these buildings, I strongly suggest keeping the page. Similar pages can actually be improved by contributors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.51.172 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep - The dormitories of many universities are listed on wikipedia. IIT being of prime imporatnce to millions of people in India. It is unfair to delete a long standing dormitory(which is almost like a landmark). Also the page conforms to the standards of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.71.36 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete or Merge to a "list of IIT, Delhi dormitories" or the "IIT, Delhi" article dormitories are normally not notable. See for recent examples, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sidney_Pacific and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simmons Hall (Penn State). I see no assertion of any form of significant notability that anyone not from the campus would care about. Even dorms with architectural notability, such as Simmons Hall (MIT) are normally merged to a campus article. I see no links to independent media coverage or other independent reliable sources to verify the material in the articles or that they are worth having an article on. GRBerry 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - An example of another house which is not significantly notable is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabot_House . This page should be preserved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.87.43.18 (talk) .
  • Comment Arguments that one article should be kept or deleted because another exists/was deleted are fairly weak. (For extant articles, they simply may never have been called into question, and for deletes, it may well have been deleted because of article specific content issues.) Stronger arguments refer to regular practices and policies of Wikipedia. GRBerry 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, fourth point. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'd say create an article similar to Student Life in IIT Kharagpur: Student Life in IIT Delhi and merge all these hostel articles. utcursch | talk 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also. Tapti Hostel, Syed Hostel, Bonophool Hostel, Redworth (hostel), Niagara Hostel, The Old Boys Hostel. utcursch | talk 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to a List of IIT Delhi dormitories per GRBerry, utcursch, and my own nom. Article not notable enough to stand on its own. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The deletion proposal , it seems stems from the fact that the proposer's dorm was taken off wikipedia. As a member of a competing IIT, he wants to get all the hostels of other IITs off Wikipedia. There is no merit in his justification that the article is not notable enough to stand on its own. Please refrain from making such generalized statements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.96.128 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. If the article is notable, please feel free to add the info in the article that will make the notability clear to us. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. This one's a guideline, folks. Icewolf34 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article cannot be generalized using the Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. The article is notable and should be kept. {Where Therez a Will Therez a Way 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)}
    • Comment. Can you elaborate why you find the article notable and why this article should be counted as exception. Nothing to that effect is mentioned in the article. Also, please specify whether you find all the nominated articles notable, or just Vindhyachal House article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a very dangerous moment, reminiscent of the Great High School Imbroglio that took up 50% of AfD time about a year ago. If we permit, for example, college dormitories with a genuine history, such as Eliot House, how can we then claim that Ara or whatever do not have, if not as notable a history, then a sufficiently notable history, without causing a bit of a ruckus? And, once Ara or Vindhya or whatever survives AfD, wont every 20-person hostel add itself to Wikipedia?
Someone please put Eliot House up for deletion, if they dont believe any hostels are notable enough. If certain hostels are notable, have a look at Eliot House - wow, Leonard Bernstein lived there for three years! and Benazir and the Unabomber! - and consider very carefully why IITD hostels have had fewer people of national importance living there. The most that can be said for Eliot architecturally is that it is 'typical of Harvard'. Peronally, I think all House/dorm/rez/College(at Yale) articles should go, unless theyre genuinely notable for architecture. Hornplease 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All non-notable hostels, whether of IITs or not, should be deleted. I am planning to PROD all the hostels mentioned in this AfD in the near future, after making sure (by google searching, etc) that they are non-notable. If someone wants to PROD them now, please go ahead. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I look forward to those AfDs.Hornplease 06:20, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nozomi Witches[edit]

a nn manga, anime. Google 922hit. BAVLO 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question— What is our standard for notability on manga & anime? Williamborg (Bill) 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a production of a notable studio, Group TAC. Pretty much any anime or manga is "notable" enough for Wikipedia as long as it was major enough to be published by a major publisher. The same notability standards for TV shows and books apply. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep as a bad faith nomination (the article has only been in existence for a couple days now), and there is plenty showing notability (48 volumes in the series makes it far more notable than many other series). This nomination was also BAVLO's very first edit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be noted that BAVLO's only edits (there are three) were setting up this AfD. I suspect BAVLO is a sock used by someone who doesn't want to have this AfD tied to their real account. It's extremely unlikely that a brand new editor would even know that you could nominate articles for deletion, let alone be able to figure out the process without doing any other edits (like asking for help, for example). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:FICT's default position is that all published fiction is notable unless they are fanfics, self-published, or published through vanity press. And since this is a 48 volume manga series with an OVA adaptation, it would be more notable then other manga. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-fatih nom. Bigtop 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep per Nihonjoe. Ganryuu (talk)
  • Keep with major disagreements on other reasons of keeping WP:FICTION says nothing of the sort. The policy on published fiction is under debate at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). I've seen a lot of crappy fiction books in libraries that collect dust on the shelves. Is every Harlequin romance notable enough for an article? No. Neither is every manga. I think this meets notablilty standards, but I think the article should do a better job of explaing how it does so. It should mention reception in the home country or sales figures. (I know they're hard to find for older manga like this one.) Perhaps it should be included inside of an article on the mangaka. --Kunzite 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think having 48 collected volumes indicates the reception in the home country was quite decent (and indicates sales were significant enought to keep the series going for years). That's longer than Dragon Ball (which had 42 volumes), so it was at least as popular. Like most sports manga, however, that popularity doesn't necessarily carry to other countries. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLS Limousine[edit]

Spam on company which fails all WP:CORP criteria --Mecanismo | Talk 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— The criteria for companies and corporations does not address franchises such as this case all that well. A listing of 650 BLS Limo services nationally (in the U.S.) might be the basis for an arguement that this is a notable firm. A lack of internet coverage other than ads would argue that it's not notable (although it gets sufficient Google hits to have some traction). Think we're in the gray zone here. I lean toward delete, but will watch to see if someone’s research turns up a good argument for retention (or a recommendation on a notability policy change). Williamborg (Bill) 14:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 15:02, 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 - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nary.--Andeh 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nary[edit]

Another dictionary definition - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Blood red sandman 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki— Agree that this belongs elsewhere. Must confess I'd never seen this before and can't help wondering if it is correct. Wikipedia is a most amazing place. Williamborg (Bill) 15:24, 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 Deville (Talk) 15:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Gosta[edit]

1. The username is Pgosta. The subject probably wrote this. 2. If you read it carefully it is written in a self promoting way. 3. The Awards and Recognitions section contains accomplishments which can not be verified by other sources and would only be known by the subject. This article was written by the subject. The external links are basically advertisements for his websites.

ALSO: Later the subject apparently edited the page two different times without logging in and his IP addresses were logged. Guess what? The IP addresses are out of Atlanta, GA, which is where Predrag Gosta lives. Try it yourself using I used http://www.arin.net/whois/

Here are the IPs:

  • 65.13.29.28
  • 24.30.53.95

65.13.29.28 has also done the following:

  • 06:58, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Josip Broz Tito
  • 06:52, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (→Socialist Republics and Autonomous Provinces)
  • 06:34, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Georgia State University (→Notable Alumni)
  • 06:33, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Georgia State University (→External link)
  • 06:33, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) John B. Haberlen
  • 06:31, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Georgia State University
  • 06:31, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Georgia State University
  • 06:29, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Predrag Gosta (→External links)
  • 06:28, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) List of famous Atlantans (→Musicians, actors and other entertainers)
  • 06:21, 4 June 2005 (hist) (diff) Predrag Gosta
  • 23:06, 13 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Music conservatory
  • 23:04, 13 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Trinity College of Music
  • 06:43, 13 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Milla Jovovich
  • 17:20, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Baroque violin
  • 17:13, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Baroque violinist
  • 17:01, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Early Music Network
  • 16:56, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Baroque orchestra
  • 16:54, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Baroque orchestra
  • 16:50, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) List of period instruments
  • 16:45, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) List of period instruments
  • 16:37, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Orchestra (→United States)
  • 15:51, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Georgia State University
  • 15:36, 7 February 2005 (hist) (diff) List of harpsichordists
  • 19:05, 27 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Yugoslavia
  • 19:04, 27 December 2004 (hist) (diff) January 14 (→1950-1999)
  • 18:50, 27 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Claudio Monteverdi

If you put the puzzle pieces together with him having an apparently Yugoslavian name, the above shows that the subject of this article is also the AUTHOR. Let's keep Wikipedia from being a MYSPACE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N00b33 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep and revise— Agree that the author of an article should not promote himself. And the AfD nomination makes an extremely compelling case that this is most probably self promotion. That said, the source is not automatic reason for deletion; it is an automatic reason for editing to exclude those things which can not be independently verified. There are legitimate independent internet articles confirming Predrag Gosta's existence and suggesting/supporting notability. See example 1, Amazon example, The Gwinnett Ballet Theatre Orchestra, Predrag Gosta Conducting and so forth. Let’s fix the article, but let’s keep the article. Williamborg (Bill) 15:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak Delete. Wow... at first I was going to complain about your lengthy nomination, but it's clearly needed with such a complicated web of blatant self-promotion. I think everything posted by the author should be tagged for NPOV. I would agree with Williamborg that the Ballet has at least borderline notability and verifiability. But does this confer notability on its creator? I'm skeptical. It's also very weak on the verifiability for Predrag Gosta. In another case I might be more inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, but such an agregious violation of WP:AUTO holds some weight as well. Irongargoyle 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Based on the fact that N00b33 seems to be a single purpose account I'm backing off a bit. I stand by all my other statements though. Irongargoyle 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise per Williamborg (Bill). The article does a decent job of arguing for notability, although I strongly agree all awards, honors, etc need citations as quickly as possible. The article author could very well have intended self-promotion but unless s/he blocks others who make good faith edits to it, I would say let wiki-darwinism make the article what it should be. -Markeer 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the understanding that non-POV elements are removed. Subject appears to be notable. Mallanox 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm uneasy on this one. Much that I'm normally inclusionist on such matters. The self-promotion is unmistakable, and the notability is not quite evident to me. Of the prizes listed, most may just be minor student-level awards. And the early music ensemble he founded doesn't seem to have gone much beyond regional notablility. They've produced some CDs that apparently won some (modest) acclaim, but I can't quickly find much on the web in terms of independent critical acclaim for the conductor, or reviews in major music journals. The CDs were all produced by Gosta's own firm, Edition Lilac (another article created by Gosta himself). Borderline case for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment: More important facts found by careful research...
In this revision, a non-musical award was listed and then later was deleted. There is no way anyone could know about this award except the subject. "Revision as of 03:03, 13 March 2005 The Internatinal High IQ Society"
  • The following link shows that John Holloway first performed with the subject's orchestra in February 26, 2005: http://www.johnholloway.org/calendar.htm A month later, John Holloway is shown as golden history in this revision:
  • "Revision as of 03:42, 13 March 2005
  • He collaborated with famous musicians such as violinist John Holloway, sopranos Emma Kirby and Evelyn Tubb, recorder virtuoso Marion Verbruggen, harpist Andrew Lawrence-King and many others." Intresting timing.
Something else few would know of.
  • "Revision as of 03:41, 13 March 2005; Affiliate Guest Lecturer, Georgia State University, Atlanta (2003-present)"
In this revision, a photo was uploaded with an interesting filename which was apparently changed later. A google for the filename brought no results. Seems to have been uploaded by the subject.
  • "Revision as of 04:43, 27 January 2006 Image:Pedja-ChairFront-color-300x400.jpg"
The subject's birthday is listed but not be found anywhere else online to confirm except sites which mirror Wikipedia: [12]
Let's not forget what the Wikipedia guidelines say: [13]
Creating an article about yourself
Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Irongargoyle says: "I think everything posted by the author should be tagged for NPOV." Take a look at his other stuff. I think Irongargoyle is right.
MALLANOX, the subject only "appears to be notable" (as you say) by self-promotion. Take the time to do your research and I am sure you will agree.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by N00b33 (talk • contribs) , Comments formatted by Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I'm not wild about the idea that he has created most of the blue links off of his page. (If anyone is interested, nearly all of his "collaborators" (remember what that term used to mean?) have wikipedia entries because he made them). I can buy CDs on which he acted as conductor, not only from his own site but from others, Amazon etc. To me that makes him notable. I'd strip his entry down to bare basics and allow others to build it back up. Mallanox 11:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be fair, some of the names mentioned (Anthony Rooley, Emma Kirkby, Evelyn Tubb) are truly top notch. When Gosta created their articles, he was doing good encyclopedic work. Maybe he should then have spent more time expanding their articles than his own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mallanox, Anyone can be a seller of their own products at Amazon. Does that make them notable? http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=gw_m_b_si/002-7780941-2049636?ie=UTF8&node=3309511 Future Perfect at Sunrise, As far the artists he has worked with, a little web research shows that some of these artists were "collaborated with" by the subject in a college course setting: http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/interpreters/conductors/11306.php He attended numerous masterclasses and courses, particularly in historical performance, under the direction of well-known artists such as Emma Kirkby, Evelyn Tubb, Anthony Rooley, and others.
-N00b33
Well, according to his resume here [14] he did actually perform with them, and he definitely had Evelyn Tubb in his Dido recording, that much is verifiable. Tending towards a solution of keep but re-stub as per Mallanox above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my account being called a single purpose account, think of it this way: I am strongly considering taking up wikiing as a hobby as it allows me a venue for one of my favorite pastimes -- web research. I consider the debate here as test. Does Darwinism work? I am perusing Wikipedia and stumble on what seems the subject's laughable self promotion and wonder, "Is this myspace?" Now I am at a place where I wonder whether this is a place I want to contribute my time to or not.
-N00b33
Well, careful. You do come across like someone who has a personal axe to grind with Gosta. You were certainly right in drawing attention to the problems here, but please make sure you don't overstretch it so you aren't seen as "wikistalking". Just a bit of advice. (Oh, and please could you sign your contributions with "~~~~" to get your proper signature inserted? Thank you!) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thanks for the advice. I can see where it would come across that way as I tend to enjoy a good debate and have been known to go to extremes. Oh...I will now try to sign properly... Yay, it worked! N00b33 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)N00b33[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinko Five[edit]

Unencyclopedic

This is a confirmed piece of fan-fiction. Unencyclopedic.Thebookpolice 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I did a search for this I was stunned. I came up with a CNN hit! then I realized that "The Kinko Five" was in the context of: "with a gun and a dog, faxing them from the Kinko's. Five days later" ...so for this ugly bit of fancruft: Delete. Irongargoyle 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea of this is an unpublished book that will probably never get published." Fan fiction, non-notable (for uglydolls?!?!) Delete Dina 17:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fanfiction. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 14:46, 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)  13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ball tampering controversy in fourth Oval Test v Pakistan[edit]

Unfinished article which was possibly pasted from some site (notice the source reference mark which was also pasted) on a recent cricket controversy. Possible copyvio, junk article on non-notable subject --Mecanismo | Talk 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice against re-creation. Not a copy-vio, but it is copy-pasted from Ball tampering. This does seem to be a notable (albeit very recent) incident, but I think it's covered perfectly well in the Ball tampering article. If any substantial new material is added in the course of the AFD, I'll change my vote to keep. Irongargoyle 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. See here for coverage of the incident. Irongargoyle 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep, probably the biggest controversy in World Cricket since the 'bodyline' issue in the 1930s. Markb 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why have no sources at all been cited, either in this discussion or in the article? Uncle G 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Some good citations here, here, here, and here. I'd re-write the article myself, but I know nothing about cricket. Irongargoyle 15:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already covered at Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006#Fourth_Test_.2817-20_August.29 and at ball tampering. Uncle G 15:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably the biggest controversy in World Cricket since the 'bodyline' issue in the 1930s. Doctor Bruno 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current version, per Irongargoyle. Already quite adequately covered. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Irongargoyle. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006. It's also covered at ball tampering#Examples and Darrell Hair#2006 Oval. I don't think it needs its own article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course, the page needs a thorough re-write, some sources and much expansion, but then what pages don't? This is a huge issue in the world of cricket - comparable to Bodyline or the match-fixing scandal with Cronje et al. a few years back - and deserves its own article. Batmanand | Talk 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems big at the moment, but with hindsight I don't think it will be as big as either of the two you name. Certainly not Bodyline, which led to significant changes in the rules. Does the match-fixing scandal have its own article? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This incident may lead to changes in the ball tampering rules, changes in the match forfeiture rules, and will definitely lead to changes in umpire-team relations. The match-fixing scandal does not have its own article, but IMO it should. Batmanand | Talk 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have been match-fixing scandals going back to the 18th century. What is so important about the latest one? Ball tampering has happened before too. This whole incident is a current news item that will be forgotten in less than a year. --BlackJack | talk page 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many test matches have been forfeited so far in the History of CricketDoctor Bruno 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rename please!): anything cricket-related covered by the U.S. news is notable. -Acjelen 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because there is nothing here that other articles won't or don't already cover. If, in time, it turns out to be as big an issue as Bodyline then there may be a need for a separate article, but this isn't it, and it won't take too much to write something that overtakes this rather puny effort. Johnlp 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as notable incident. Alternatively, we should redirect people as to where they will find information on the incident. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete, the weaker content fork. Easier to delete or merge it now than later. If editors of Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 wish to split the section, that would be fine. --Vsion 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006. This is very topical and if no activity is seen in the article then it will lose relevance quickly. - Parthi 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion and merger are mutually exclusive. Please choose one or the other. Uncle G 12:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Barely notable.-Kmaguir1 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect if you wish. GizzaChat © 11:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already covered by other articles particularly Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 which is the definitive article on this tour. Not worth merging. But I would point out to those with no knowledge of the world's second most popular sport (after soccer) that it most certainly is notable. --BlackJack | talk page 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the minimal content can be merged elsewhere, such as Ball tampering or Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 (like Bodyline and Match fixing, we don't need separate articles on each individual incident). In any event, this title is useless - if we need a separate article, it should be somewhere like Ball tampering in the Fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval in 2006. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stephen Turner and BlackJack. A redirect would be useful if the name were sensible, but it isn't. JPD (talk) 13:14, 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 as blatant copyvio from a commercial site.--Andeh 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Von dutch kustom cycles[edit]

In my opnion, this article does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The tag for speedy deletion applied by me was removed by the author. Hello32020 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non notable Hello32020 14:53, 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 Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barri Cae Mallin[edit]

Blatant vantity and self-promotion article written by User:Barricae. Article is on very obscure, not notable women and full of irrelevant nonsense ("In 1980, during lunch, two business associates shared a Bible verses with her"...) --Mecanismo | Talk 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jeez... I like how the article is written as a psalm (or perhaps an extended sonnet), but there's nothing in there to indicate passing WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— even a relatively strong inclusionist has a hard time supporting this one... Williamborg (Bill) 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete as vanity. Molerat 18:20, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatum Reed (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bond Cabbell[edit]

Article on a very obscure person which fails to assert any kind of notability. Not notable personality which is void of any encyclopedic value. The google test lists only 26 results --Mecanismo | Talk 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google is not very informative for someone dead for so long, but he does look highly non-notable. Page creator admits he does not know WP policy. Leibniz 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Thanks to up+l+and for going beyond google. Leibniz 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep— Although this material is likely to be promoted by someone with a specific interest in Benjamin Bond Cabbell, perhaps genealogy, it must be evaluated on its own merit. Notability is always contentious, and notability (people) is not Wikipedia policy so we have no absolute standard. The list of ways to verify notability of articles reminds us that "article for deletion reviews, although frequently limited to internet resources, must remain aware that not all published material of significance has been posted on the internet;" this is an excellent example where an internet review is likely to come up dry. Without doing serious library research, one can only review the article. Amusingly enough, the item that probably qualifies him for notability is mentioned in passing – serving as Sheriff of Norfolk - which was a far more substantial role in earlier centuries than it is today. Although this opens to door to a long string of Sheriffs from Norfolk (and many other places), in the ambiguous and contentious world of Wikipedia NN determinations, Sheriffs probably warrant a spot. Keep him - Williamborg (Bill) 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Our WP:BIO criteria have been widely employed by many editors for several years, now, being derived from our official policy that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. An argument that we should keep this because it is of genealogical interest is an argument against policy.

        As for searches coming up dry, we've had enough false historical figures (and Greek gods, even — see Dinlas (AfD discussion)) slyly inserted into Wikipedia to know that simply accepting something without attempting any verification at all, simply because it is "historical", is prone to egregious error. The article cites no sources, and unless editors are able to find sources for themselves (which you yourself say they are not) this article is unverifiable.

        If you wish to make a case for keeping that actually holds water, please cite some sources to show that this person is indeed a part of the enduring historical record, having been mentioned in history books and suchlike. Uncle G 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is notable enough. Keep topic if new article is written, but delete this version as copyvio. He was an MP (fulfilling WP:BIO) as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society. Moreover, he has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The problem with this article is just that significant parts of it are uncomfortably close to the one in the ODNB. up+l+and 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's listed under past Fellows of the Royal Society, according to Sackler Archive Resource (search on Cabell then click on number for more details). It also lists him as Vice President, Royal Institution, which doesn't seem to be in the article. FRS alone seems to meet notability requirements to me. Edited to add: there's also a picture of his lifeboat here. And he's cited in the index of the book Making English Morals: Voluntary Association and Moral Reform in England, 1787-1886 which suggests he may have been a notable MP. Espresso Addict 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've now collected some links on the talk page which go some way to answering Uncle G's challenge, and may also help with making a non-copyvio article. Espresso Addict 20:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apppears notable enough: Member of parliament and FRS. Ohconfucius 03:55, 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 keep for now.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Breeg[edit]

Article on a character from an Iron Maiden song. Very obscure, not notable void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have tagged the article for Speedy Delete - Blood red sandman 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's notable now since he is a real person who disappeared. His 'real' connection to Iron Maiden has yet to be revealed. I say wait at least a month and see what happens. Its not like this article contains any mistakes. (The Elfoid 12:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • I'd agree with that. I'm sure his real relevance to Iron Maiden/his actual history and significance will be revealed pretty soon, since the record has been released. :-) --DrBob 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the article useful, so i don't think it should be deleted.
  • Is there any harm in letting it remain. If it turns out that there is some historical relevance to the band, or any other source, it could be hasty to delete it.
  • I have found this article useful to understand what the song purposes and symbolism are. If you take a moment to visit the supposed "real" Benjamin Breeg page, you will clearly realise its connection with the band. I think this article (even though it is still a stub) adds a deeper layer of knowledge for those who want to know what songs mean and thus, it should not be deleted. - JSCouso (aug, 31-2006)
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)  13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism On The Web[edit]

Vanity aritcle for a non-notable website. Google hits for (link:www.zionismontheweb.org) = 317. Alexa traffic Rank for zionismontheweb.org: 1,089,604. Two links provided are merely web directory entries and the only press link provided does not specifically mention the "Zionism On The Web" website. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources mentioned are rather minor- one is "favourite links", another is basically a directory of hundreds of Jewish/Israeli sites, and the news report doesn't even mention the site in question. The material is unverifiable. --Wafulz 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website. Danny Lilithborne 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, trivial coverage - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. 2 of the sources don't mention the site at all. And the other is just a directory listing. Localzuk (talk) 11:46, 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, nomination withdrawn. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherio[edit]

Does not apear to be noteable. Attempted to find some kind of a reference on Google, but found nothing actually refering to the drink - is therefore unverified, not easily verifiable and not easily expandable either. Blood red sandman 15:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:V. Irongargoyle 16:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. It does exist; the reason Google knows nothing is that the drink (Japanese: チェリオ cherio) is officially called "Cheerio" in English, so the title is wrong. However, I cannot verify the claim that it's "no longer produced" -- the Cheerio Corporation's website seems to be advertising Cheerio soft drinks quite happily, and the Japanese Wikipedia article likewise says no such thing. Move the article to the correct name and delete that apparently-misleading claim, add the links from this comment, and we'd have a dicdef ("Cheerio is a Japanese soft drink brand"), an external link in Japanese, and an interwiki link from which the article could theoretically be expanded by translation. We've had worse. — Haeleth Talk 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and move to Cheerio — I believe that the orange-flavored Cheerio in a glass bottle is the original Cheerio, as well as the grape-flavored one. I've seen them in the Japanese dagashiya's in the 1970's. Looking at the corporate website, it appears that the original Cheerio's have been reincarnated in plastic bottles. As for the Wikipedia article, it can be expanded further. Just because it's not as popular as Coca-Cola doesn't mean that it's not notable.--Endroit 16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've moved the article to Cheerio (drink) and expanded it a bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beautiful, Nihonjoe, your work is a spectacular improvement! And has a nice retro feel also.--Endroit 07:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice Picture and article expansion Nihonjoe. Irongargoyle 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to withdraw my nomination - now that the article has been expanded it is in a useable state as an encyclopedic entry. - Blood red sandman 23:45, 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 CSD A7. I'm leaving the redlink from Gambas untouched - this article can be rewritten if/when the subject becomes otherwise notable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benoît Minisini[edit]

Unauthorized copy of a biography of some obscure open-source hacker. CopyVio, not-notable, obscur. Triple no no --Mecanismo | Talk 15:46, 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 wasMerge into The Demonata. BaseballBaby 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beranabus[edit]

Nonsense ramblings on a extremely obscure subject. The google test lists 91 hits. --Mecanismo | Talk 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into The Demonata. There's no need for what seems to be a very minor character to have its own article. Srose (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Srose. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that as the series goes on, Beranabus is likely to become an important character. I think the article should be kept, as he is quite a main character and lots is known about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy mci (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into The Demonata. If in a couple of years Beranabus does turn out to be an important character in the book series and the info about him makes The Demonata article overly long, then I would support undoing the merge at that time in the future. Plinth molecular gathered 19:45, 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.

Best Maid Pickle[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Best Maid Products, of which the text is exactly the same as this article anyway. Herostratus 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Spam on some company's product line --Mecanismo | Talk 16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable company, especially in the southern USA, with 80 years of history and lots of big-name clients (Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc). Could use a bit of cleanup, but it's certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No point in keeping this as an independent entry exists for Best Maid Products. Ohconfucius 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. per Ohconfucius. Nlsanand 05:12, 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 merge and redirect. —Mets501 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher alkanes[edit]

Clear dic def, already covered under Alkane... Mikker (...) 16:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Keep and expand— The higher alkanes are a serious topic in organic chemistry. Lots more to be said on the topic. Let's make it a proper article. Williamborg (Bill) 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Thought about that a little longer and decided Mikkerpikker is right. Let's simply redirect Higher alkanes to alkanes; that article is quite well written and does cover it all.[reply]
    • Should probably have said I favour a redirect, deletion prob too much. Mikker (...) 16:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't nominate things for deletion unless you actually want them to be deleted. If you want to redirect something, redirect it. Uncle G 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alkane. The Alkane article doesn't mention anything about anything with nine carbon atoms or more being a higher alkane. Come to think of it, what are the properties of higher alkanes, other than they have more carbon atoms? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alkane with redirect, per Elkman. Espresso Addict 20:24, 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 merge and redirect to IGN. — CharlotteWebb 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vestibule[edit]

Completely non-notable board outsite its members, a well written subsection on IGN is sufficient, and redirection of The Vestibule to IGN should sort things out. It may be worth noting the state of the page currently is very bad. Asterism 16:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect We can't have one article per every board a forum has, no matter how notable. Merge any useful content in IGN and redirect. If we remove all the fancruft, the article becomes one paragraph long. -- ReyBrujo 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I'm entirely in agreement. Merge what (little) redeemable material that exists into IGN and turn The Vestibule into a redirect. Sephylight 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect There's not much in there, but you could put a (very small) section about it in IGN page. Scrap the list of fads. --Smobey 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect This isn't notable enough for it's own article, mostly useless things are added to this article... --TehBrandon 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to post on this page exactly, I just wanted to say I completely rewrote the article on The Vestibule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.219.112 (talk • contribs) .
    Just put a *'''Comment''' at the beginning of your opinion, then your thoughts, finishing with ~~~~ to sign your post. Also, thanks for your effort. The main concern is that, by allowing a board from a forum to be left as a standalone article, we may see several other articles about forums in Wikipedia. Please see the web notability: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article. -- ReyBrujo 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the point of a wiki if your just going to eliminate the pages which you feel are not worthy. As long as no one is using the page as a forum ( and some are I am sure ) then leave it. Even if its only a little info about it. Its a wiki not news. 71.113.78.158 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my comment immediately above yours: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components are not necessarily notable. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but we must be selective with the articles. -- ReyBrujo 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it should be deleted, a small section on the IGN page just isn't enough, its a complexe place that needs explaining in detail. Hows this for a deal - If i can make it bigger add more ect don't delete it Eagle5 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be better to make an article for the IGN Boards as a whole (I see that it currently directs to IGN). There is precedent set by GameFAQs and the GameFAQs message boards article- even the largest individual boards have been rightfully stopped from making their own articles. 71.67.132.178 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect I agree with this above comment. Should be trimmed and moved to an IGN Boards article. --Icep 04:24, 5 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 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.K.E.[edit]

Please note that this is an exact duplicate of Cke (AfD discussion).

This article is about a high school fan club that is not significant enough to have a place on Wikipedia. P.B. Pilhet 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. May qualify for speedy deletion under CSD A7. --DMG413 17:07, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cke[edit]

Please note that this is an exact duplicate of C.K.E. (AfD discussion).

Looks non-notable to me. The schdule provided on the page makes it look more like a fan information site than an encyclopedia. --Spring Rubber 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. May qualify for speedy deletion under CSD A7. --DMG413 17:07, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Chapnick

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  10:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses[edit]

This article is completely unreferenced and comprised entirely of a plot summary. John254 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, real book, coloring book and DVD. Surprisingly, it isn't listed at imdb even though there are several other Barbie direct-to-video animated films listed there. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, explanation, the DVD hasn't been released yet. It comes out in September. The book just came out August 22. It's a Golden Book for 4-8 year olds. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main Barbie article. TheRingess 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we did that with every Barbie product, the Barbie article would be far too unwieldy. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd rather watch an esperanto-dubbed copy of Gigli on a broken TV than any one of the Barbie direct-to-DVD movies, but the fact is they're fairly major products among the preteen set. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Starblind. Definitely seems to have notability...unfortunately. This regrettably removes the chance of any good lines such as "Stacie-sized delete" Irongargoyle 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I coudn't care less about anything Barbie related, but this is notable enought to keep. TJ Spyke 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable. Tikallover 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but requires major rewrite. For the record, I can't stand barbie either. - Blood red sandman 12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable, although it needs a clean-up. --71.118.76.179 18:51, 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)  10:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Simpson TRL Stats[edit]

unnecessary article; author keeps removing the speedy deletion templates. --Spring Rubber 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"unnecessary" is not one of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no policy expert, but look at that. It's just a bunch of pointless stats about how many times songs were played on a TV show. Surely some criterion would cover that? --Spring Rubber 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are the statistics verifiable? Are they original research? You should be looking for, and asking for, sources. Uncle G 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— Speedy deletion seems appropriate. Even in the broader sense of an enccylopedia, this appears a stretch. Williamborg (Bill) 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No speedy deletion criterion applies to this article. (It was nominated as "no context", but there was and is plenty of context in the very first sentence of the article to work out what it is intended to be about.) Without that, your rationale is empty. Please explain which of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines this article contravenes. Uncle G 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to Jessica Simpson unless I'm missing something. Regarding Uncle G's very sensible question, I would suggest the content probably isn't sufficiently notable to be worthy of its own article. Addhoc 18:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regarding Uncle G's comment, the number of times a song is played on a call in tv-show is non-encyclopedic content. KnightLago 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue. It depends from what sources exist. If the number of times that a song is played is something that is discussed by many people and the subject of much literature, then it most definitely is encyclopaedic. On the other hand, if this article is the result of a Wikipedia editor counting the number of plays xyrself and reporting the result of this firsthand primary research, then it isn't. As I said, the right thing to be doing is not asking onesself "Do I think that this belongs in an encyclopaedia?" but asking "Do sources exists for this? How many sources are there? How extensive are they? Who wrote them?" Uncle G 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge into Jessica Simpson. I agree with Addhoc that this content doesn't meet the notability standard to have an entry all its own. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Is not interesting to regular people. It's not a speedy, though. Danny Lilithborne 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not interesting to regular people" is not a deletion criteria. PLenty of things in wikipedia are interesting to only a minority of people, but we keep them anyway. WP:NOT paper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates WP:OR and WP:NOT. It's minutiae too trivial to deserve a Wikipedia article of its own. wikipediatrix 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Wickethewok 14:47, 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 as page has been blanked for copyvio. Herostratus 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfast[edit]

Article seems to be an advert by one-edit contributer KHZahorsky (talk · contribs). The text is largely taken from the silverfast.com web site, even though it doesn't link to it. Uses first-person speech. This article cannot remain in this state. Imroy 17:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubify and Keep - A google search shows that this softare is notable enough under WP:SOFTWARE, but it can't stay in it's current form, where it addresses the reader personally (second person, :P). --Daniel Olsen 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It cannot stay in its current form because it is a copy of text that is "© 1986-2006, LaserSoft Imaging, Incorporated. All rights reserved.". If you think that a good, referenced, stub with potential for expansion can be written, please write one in the rewrite article. Uncle G 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless rewritten and secondary references included. Addhoc 17:53, 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)  10:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expatica[edit]

This is simply a vanity page - it appears to be a commercial company promoting its own activities and using Wikipedia as a means to raise its profile through an external link. DrDaveHPP 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep a notable website in Alexa's top 20,000 and a useful source of English language news for expats. Its news stories regularly appear on Google News searches. It is also referenced by other news media; here and here as examples. --RMHED 19:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RMHED, reasonable Alexa ranking. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 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)  10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Birkbeck[edit]

I cleaned this up but further investigation reveals that it's probably not an article worth having. Fewer than 80 GHits, mostly irrelevant. I've not been able to verify the assertion to notability either. Soo 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 21 unique Ghits, the relevant ones are mainly for blogsites and myspace. I'm afraid Emmy nominations don't count towards fulfilling WP:MUS. This is a vanity article written by User:Dunneroman, which happens to be the name of his own record label (Website link here). Fails WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. Ohconfucius 03:10, 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. My reasoning is thus: of the four references, two are by Ruthy Alon, one is an interview with Ruthy Alon in Feldenkrais Journal, a publication of dubious impartiality, and the fourth is a reference that, in my opinion, is dubious: Aspray TJ, Prentice A, Cole TJ, Sawo Y, Reeve J, Francis RM. Low bone mineral content is common but osteoporotic fractures are rare in elderly rural Gambian women. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 1996 Jul;11(7):1019-25. (PMID 8797124). I don't know that the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research on Gambian Women doesn't contain significant references to Bones for Life, but I am suspicious. Secondly, we have to be very careful about letting spam into the Wikipedia. Granted the article has been rewritten well, still. It's spammish history shows that it was not written by a disinterested scholar but by the very people who stand to benefit from the inclusion of the article. That's another point against the article. Thirdly, I did not find the Keep arguments to be strong as regards to notability. If Alon was a top figure in a recognizedly important medical field, that would be one thing. Being a top figure (claimed, anyway) in the less notable Feldenkrais Method is insufficient to establish notability. Herostratus 19:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bones for Life[edit]

Article is an attempt at rewriting Bones for Life -- Wellness through Movement Intelligence to remove most obvious violations of WP:SPAM. Article is still unverifiable, consisting almost entirely of original research. Subject is non-notable. --Ronz 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note significant new reference DBOLTSON has now included a reference 5-page interview with Ruthy, largely about Bones for Life in the Feldenkrais Journal (the primary "trade publication" of the Feldenkrais Guild of North America). The editors of that journal are highly qualified to judge this kind of article (they are experts put in place by other experts), so it should be considered as authoritative. The reference is currently a bit hard to track down, but the author is seeking permission to include the text on-line. --KineticScientist 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reference I've just posted the news article from Lesley University's monthly publication, "Lesley Today" regarding a for-credit program that was taught there on Bones for Life. --KineticScientist 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a single reference that almost meets Wiki policy. Can you find something like this that doesn't include the promotional material at the end? Any thoughts of rewriting the article to actually use the references that are being listed now that you're so close to having acceptable ones? --Ronz 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that self-published sources are given consideration when the author is an expert in their field, which is the case with Ruthy Alon. No one is disputing that, are they? 58.178.157.210 06:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep / Merge. Widely published and translated author is one of the most prominent Feldenkrais Practitioners in the world. Both her and her movement therapy are well known. The nominating user seems to be on a deletion binge in somatics. Not sure why. 58.178.238.236 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide the references please. No one has provided any yet and I've found nothing in my searches except advertising. Also, I don't appreciate the personal attack. --Ronz 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing except advertising? Good grief. These are the kind of exaggerations we can do without. Try this search or this search if you want just the author. Since when do we wholesale delete an article that is under-referenced? Article has three references as a good start. 58.178.129.162 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for that apology. Don't appreciate your continued complaints about me either. I ran my own searches and everything I found would fall under WP:SPAM. The article has three very poor references by wiki standards, which support only a single section of the article so far. The bottom line is that so far the authors have not actually cited what they are using for references, or they are simply writing original research. --Ronz 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You call having her own book on the topic and a link to a Medline article a poor standard? Your argument is clearly nonsense. I'd like you to apologise for wasting everyone's time. 58.178.129.162 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still more personal attacks? Still ignoring Wiki policy and guidelines? Project much? --Ronz 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless adequate references are provided. --apers0n 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Merge. Article is up to reasonable standards for Alternative Medicine, in which primary informational web presence is often also "commercial." Ruthy's book, while ostensibly about the Feldenkrais method, contains the majority of ideas now referred to as "Bones for Life." That being said, I've requested news articles from the Bones teacher forum. Public utility outweighs current weakness in references. --KineticScientist 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article must list sources as far as I'm aware. So far the bulk of the article has none. --Ronz 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Merge. The Bones for Life work is a descendant of the somatic disciplines of Elsa Gindler and Heinrich Jacoby, F.M. Alexander (The Alexander Technique), Gerda Alexander (Eutony) with a lineage and direct pedigree from Moshe Feldenkrais (Ruthy Alon's esteemed teacher) with cousins including Thomas Hanna's Somatic Education -- all of whom have mentions in WikiPedia (yet none of whom are living, unfortunately). Given this works's newness (having evolved only over the past 10 years) it is understandable that reference material is limited, but due to its pedigree and growing recognition (having taken root in 19 countries on 5 continents, with over 500 teachers worldwide) it would seem an oversight for it not to be granted some acknowledgement, if only for the sake of completeness. References to Bones for Life -- as written up in newspaper articles worldwide -- are in the process of being gathered (I trust Hebrew is acceptable). Speaking from personal experience, this work, based on solid biomechanical, ergonomic principles is most credible -- not to mention effective -- and deserves further attention by your readers inquiring into cutting edge approaches to Alternative Medicine and NCCAM. Does WikiPedia have a specialist "research librarian" personally knowledgeable and experienced in the area of body therapies and somatic educational approaches to provide more "hands-on" insight and evaluation from a connoisseur's perspective? --DBOLTSON 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note here what's happening: the main author, DBOLTSON, is trying to find sources AFTER writing the article. He's caught up in proving what he's writing is true, ignoring Wiki policy that he should be be writing directly from sources he has on hand. He's doing original research. --Ronz 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, in a more gentle light, after making a contribution which falls somewhat short (though is perhaps currently acceptable), DBOLTSON is trying to bring it up to the highest possible standards. Doing this article properly is hard, and DBOLTSON (and I, in any supporting role I've played) are just learning the ropes -- ignorant perhaps, but not purposefully 'ignoring'. --KineticScientist 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the problem here was the article was identified as problematic from it's very creation. While there are assertions that the article is acceptable from some editors, the explanations, when they exist, consist of more comments like DBOLTSON's above: long on claims and short on sources. --Ronz 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The skepticism here is wonderfully healthy and challenging! Thank you, everyone! Please bear in mind that, just because one does not believe in something -- understandably because one has not experienced it for himself -- does not mean that (1) it does not exist and (2) it is not a valid approach, worthy of consideration. Please excuse my enthusiasm for Bones for Life (which prompted me to create this entry in the first place) while we amplify the resource section in order to substantiate its growing worldwide recognition, and approach WikiPedia's high standards for inclusion. Being too close to a subject can often blind one to its flaws; being too far can often blind one to its merits. With everyone's contributions, I trust we can find a more objective middleground! --DBOLTSON 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the article being considered for deletion? The POV is a bit overly promotional, but it's the violations of WP:SPAM, WP:NOR, and WP:V that are of concern. --Ronz 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? No one's really agreeing with you. Anon. 58.178.194.85 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Addhoc and User:apers0n agree on deletion. I'm just trying to point out that DBOLTSON's discussion of skepticism etc has nothing to do with the issue of deletion as far as I can see. Maybe you see different and can explain? --Ronz 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Users User:Addhoc and User:apers0n asked for more references and they were provided, so that leaves you. But let me be more specific about what I am asking of you.
Regarding WP:V: You got the references you requested and also tonnes more links through google. I'd like to know specifically why you consider the 7 new references on the page to be inadequate. There are references to widely published and translated books, a medline article, interviews, and sundries. It's been established this is a notable person in the field. There are some 700+ google matches including many impartial interviews to be sorted through. Why do you consider all this to be inadequate?
Regarding WP:SPAM: I am requesting more information because it isn't clear what you are calling spam. You are working to fix the article on the discussion page, so clearly at least some of the article has merit in your eyes. Which parts do you have a problem with and why? I've noticed on other articles that you seem to consider all external links anywhere other than scientific journals to be spam, which is not the usual spam threshold on wikipedia, especially on alternative therapy articles.
Regarding WP:NOR: Everyone on the article talk page has agreed the article could be more wikified and it's worth working towards fixing that. The founding editors are new to wikipedia and it's obvious they need a helping hand. All users are clearly indicating the article has some merit, and even you have been making comments on the talk page. So why is this grounds for deleting the article? If you believed the entire article violates WP:NOR why would you be suggesting improvements on the article talk page?
I'm trying to make sense of your position. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from Addhoc and apers0n, rather than anyone assuming their positions.
WP:SPAM: I don't recall seeing any contention that DBOLTSON's original article was spam. My only concern now with this policy is that the new article, if not deleted, resolve the problems of the original article. Additionally, WP:SPAM lists an important issue, which I see as more WP:NOR: "Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it." I don't think the article has solved the SPAM issues because of the NOR issues.
WP:V: I think the editors have made very good progress providing verifiable references, though there still appears to be very heavy reliance upon Alon's book and her website. I think Aspray(1996) should be removed because there appears to be no connection between it and this Wiki article. Alon(2005) should be removed because, as I understand, it is only an abstract - the actual research paper has never been published. Still, I think these issues are minor, other than how they relate to the WP:NOR issues.
WP:NOR: (see the above quote from the WP:SPAM article) From my perspective, the article is original research with some references added that were never used as source material. I personally like the recent addition of the "Working Theory", though this not actually specific to Bones for Life and so could be moved to another article. The Research section should be removed, since it is based upon an abstract of an unpublished paper. --Ronz 02:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam Reads and probably is still spam. If after a supposed rewrite its still pretty much, I'd say it may be unfixable, and thus not for wikipedia. It seems like one of those random medical ideas that aren't well constructed or proven, where there's a collection of loosely related medical content that is original research to collect it into the medical idea presented. In summary, the program is not well established, and its spam for bonesforlife.com. --Kevin_b_er 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that if, after a rewrite, users consider it still too isolated we merge it with Feldenkrais method. It might be useful information in context of it's parent field. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Significant rewrite: Okay, I've done a considerable rewrite of the article removing advertising style language and culling unecessary fluff. You can see the differences here. I believe there really is some encyclopedic content here. With a couple more citations and ensuring the article doesn't bloat I think it's a reasonable addition to wikipedia. Please note I commented out some of the notability evidence at the bottom of the article in order to streamline the treatment. Let us know your thoughts on the new article. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my concern regarding the article is the lack of secondary references, so there is no commentary on the ideas being expressed. However, I recognize there is some encyclopedic content here and would support a merge, possibly into Feldenkrais method. Addhoc 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
self-published sources are given consideration when the author is a known expert in their field, which is the case with Ruthy Alon. I can't help wondering whether this clause in our verifiability policy is applicable here. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.157.210 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A beautiful rewrite -- very succinct and clear (and objective). I see you well understand and appreciate what we are trying to communicate, and you do so expertly; your generous expenditure of time and effort is thoroughly appreciated -- Thank You, Anon 58.178.194.85! I will get to work on sourcing the Tel Aviv study, which was cited in Ruthy's own (unpublished) Proposal to NASA (I have a copy) Bones for Life Strategies for Effective Rehabilitation of Bone Strength within Protection of Vulnerable Joint and Connective Tissue. [Text from Page 4, supported by Appendix 20, page 31] -- Or might this be useful in and of itself? As far as criticism of the work, I think it is too new to have any commentary or detractors (especially given its focus on safety, and its general harmlessness, not to say effectiveness). It really is distinct from the Feldenkrais Method -- in aims, and in approach -- and ultimately merits unique filing, IMO. --DBOLTSON 18:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comments. Secondary sources would probably most help other users feel more comfortable. Even conversations in Feldenkrais magazines should be enough to prove it's taken seriously as a modality. 58.178.157.210 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, having done a search for more references, I've reached the conclusion there is sufficient material to justify an article for Ruthy Alon and the Bones for Life material could be merged into this new article. Obviously, I'm proposing this somewhat later than optimum. Anyway... Addhoc 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ruthy Alon. Addhoc 12:47, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clam cannon[edit]

I think this page should be deleted because it is pointless.The thing was also mentioned in one episode. and never mentioned again.The article is pretty much pointless to those who are looking for information about the show.Hmrox 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Addhoc 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even the episode doesn't have an article. No reason for an article on a minor weapon. Article seems to be pointless too as per the nom.- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --RMHED 22:40, 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)  10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mujhe pyar hai[edit]

I didn't think this page quite qualified for a speedy because the artist does exist and it's not entirely nonsense. However, it consists of lyrics, a poorly typed review, and some images that confuse me as to their relation to the article. Basically there's no actual content, context, or information. Wafulz 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom, if the editor signs his name at the end of an article, this is rarely a promising sign. Addhoc 17:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most of it isn't even in English. Ohconfucius 03:13, 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)  10:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueWare[edit]

Corporate spam on non-notable company --Mecanismo | Talk 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional; fails WP:CORP Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Nigel (Talk) 12:58, 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 RENAME to The Cosmic Storyteller and REWRITE to make it clear that this is a 2001 album by Hilary Clay Hicks and not actually a lost album by the non-existant band Unicorn (as distinguinged from the real band Unicorn). Herostratus 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn (band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND, article is unsourced and some parts of it have apparently been copied from the bands website. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is unsourced though that's not to say it's unsourcable. Removal of info copied from the band website would still leave an article about a band notable for the fact that over 30 years after their breakup, their album was released. Improve it, don't delete it. Mallanox 18:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete 34,000 G-hits for "Unicorn Cosmic Storyteller". Album has "lost" material featuring musicians with their own wiki entries - Steppenwolf (band) The Association Rick Nelson etc. Notable enough to me Dina 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (I guess they wouldn't be hoaxes if some of us didn't get taken in.) Dina 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I understand the whole band is a hoax[15] (which would also mean the whole article is false) and none of the members of those bands really contributed to the album, as far as I can see. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any evidence that this is a hoax? The album can be bought on Amazon. Mallanox 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the very comment that you are replying to xe pointed to an AllMusic entry that said outright that this band was a put-on, created by Hilary Clay Hicks. Uncle G 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is interesting that you should mention the album being for sale on Amazon. There's a review of the album Cosmic Storyteller on its Amazon page by one very dissatisfied customer who was apparently looking for an album by a real band named Unicorn, from the 1970s. Uncle G 19:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I've had a listen to it and it doesn't sound like it was made in the 60s though that's by no means water-tight. If this is a hoax then maybe it should be judged as to whether it's a notable hoax. Given that it's available to buy, I would suggest that it is. This is certainly a fascinating subject and I am going to try and find out more. Mallanox 19:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find anything of any real use. It is still my opinion that it is a hoax and I stand by my previous assertion that it should remain on wikipedia reclassified as a "genuine" hoax. Mallanox 11:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying to figure this out and I'm still confused. The album appears to not be by the band Unicorn but by a woman named Hilary Clay Hicks and is sort of a hoax in the vein of Platinum Weird. The album exists, and can be bought -- it just isn't a "lost" recording. But did the band really exist at some point and she just took their story? Or is the whole thing a hoax? Dina 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was an unrelated band with the same name in the seventies, as Uncel G already mentioned above. I'd guess this one is completely made up. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a real band in the 70's called Unicorn who had Dave Gilmour produce one of their albums see [16]. It also lists this band with Cosmic Storyteller listed as their sole album see [17]. It doesn't have any text for the band but the album review states "Lost artifact of the psychedelic era? Pseudo-Spinal Tap put on? Modernist pop/psychedelia? The Cosmic Storyteller is all of these things. The brainchild of singer/producer/singer Hilary Clay Hicks, these tracks attributed to Unicorn make up a "lost" 1960s album that embraces several different musical genres, and does so with a classy sense of spirit and style." Please note that this All Music Guide tells a different story to the article. We don't have an article on Ms Hicks and nor does All Music Guide. In conclusion, I would support keeping an article on the 70s group as they clearly meet WP:MUSIC. An article on this group is marginal although we would have to make sure it was verifiable and it would need significant changes. Capitalistroadster 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's problematic, isn't it? On the one hand we have AllMusic saying that this band is a complete invention from whole cloth, and Amazon reviewers (and Wikipedia editors) saying that this album certainly doesn't sound as if it were a product of the 1960s. On the other hand, we have the web site for the album, and the album's own blurb, neither of which are independent of the album's creator(s), giving this giant history of a band whose music was supposedly "lost" for 34 years. Then, in order to muddy the issue even further, we have people accusing Platinum Weird of stealing the story of Unicorn, and a completely separate real band named Unicorn. Uncle G 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Cosmic Storyteller, make that article an explanation of the hoax, delete the redirect, and write a new article about the 70s band. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' per Zoe, but add a topline disambig to Cosmic Storyteller on the real band's article. Thryduulf 08:12, 6 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 - as a blatant hoax (a less kind term would be blatant vandalism). I choose to WP:SNOW this AfD regardless. Richardcavell 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star fox movie[edit]

  • Delete: Appears to be a hoax but I wanted people to weigh-in in case I'm wrong. Author's user page, User:Eddierulez, seems to imply the existence of the movie is something only he is privy to (maybe that's my paranoia kicking in). Somewhat related Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Jillguard. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ten minutes I spent looking for this online is 10 minutes I'll never see again. The 1993 movie has an imdb entry, this film does not. The only reference to Hayden Christiansen in a Star Fox movie I could find was on a fan site under "foreign films & wishful thinking." And this isn't a foreign film. Dina 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax. El Cid 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --RMHED 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for blatant hoaxery. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a hoax. No Star Fox movie has been announced or even rumored. TJ Spyke 00:36, 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)  10:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jillguard[edit]

  • Delete: Somewhat related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star fox movie but this is an even clearer hoax with zero Google hits. Listing here in case someone happens to know that this is a misspelled name or something - but I couldn't find anything close to verification. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tried some alternate spellings in google on the logic that it might be a mispelled Scandinavian name, but nope, nothing. Dina 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Delete if no response from author— First a caution. This author is another new contributor. So we need to diagnose the problem.
  1. Hoax? Maybe. Maybe not.
  2. Unfamiliarity with Wikipolicy? Almost assuredly.
  3. Writing style: There are signs that the author's first language may not be English. I do rather like the concept "born in Japan untill 1998"; his mother must have been relieved. But foreign authors deserve extra consideration in these reviews.
  4. How far might the name have strayed from the English version: In addition to the potential Nordic variations suggested by Dina, I tried Bruce Guiliard & Bruce Juilliard with no success.
Lacking any insight on notability, I requested the originator "join us" here. Hopefully we can figure out what this article should be titled and then we can determine notability. Williamborg (Bill) 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like your attitude Bill, and I agree about foreign authors, though my read is that it's more likely to be an 11 year old native-english-speaking boy. However, this user's edit history does seem mostly concerned with placing unsourced speculation about considered/rejected/possible casts for movies based on video games into existing articles. But let's see if he responds. Dina 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. You've probably diagnosed it correctly. It's just my strong inclusionist bent has me wanting to find good in all nominated AfDs. But some are harder to love than others. :) Williamborg (Bill) 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's great - that's why I brought it here instead of simply deleting (it had been tagged for speedy). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I say hoax. Danny Lilithborne 20:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it is necessarily a hoax. I have tried to tidy up the article as much as I can, and have found the 1993 film which is referred to on imdb, but there are very few details there of the cast, and this guy's role in it. Other searches for "Bruce Jillguard", "Bruce Jilguard", ""Bruce Jilgard"", "Falco Lombardi" movie, have drawn a blank. So basically, we have a problem under WP:V. Unless he's been in an important role, which appears unlikely, it fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:48, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devious[edit]

Vanity page for insufficiently notable band. Pathlessdesert 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, falls agonisingly short of notability per WP:MUSIC, they've toured Europe, and with notable bands, but no sources are cited in either case. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --RMHED 21:40, 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)  10:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Page[edit]

This article is about a person not significant enough to be placed on Wikipedia. -- P.B. Pilhet 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

  • Delete per nom Pathlessdesert 18:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— Not notable (yet). If it turns out, as the "critics speculate, that within two years he will be playing professionally in Europe" I'll be happy to see his name come back. Williamborg (Bill) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a vanity page.--Anthony.bradbury 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete If this is true we should keep it as it wil prove useful soon, it also seems as if this "kid" may be going to europe very soon. We might as well keep the article, for it's not taking up that much space. Public debate is neccesary.David Bettiol
    • This is the public debate, and the consensus will be that we'll need to wait to see whether he plays internationally, but at this time, he fails our guidelines. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is in reality User:64.180.144.220. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, attempt on crystall ball. Punkmorten 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO for athletes. -- Whpq 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable for now, but if notability changes take it to WP:DRV. --TheM62Manchester 22:36, 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)  10:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checks Cashed[edit]

Apears to be entirely NN and as such currently fails WP:CORP Blood red sandman 18:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If we need an article for each and every check cashing place in our neighborhoods, I better go get started immediately. Dina 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --RMHED 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Spam --Nigel (Talk) 12:56, 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)  10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Yee[edit]

Danny Yee was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-11. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee.

Fixing the nomination made by Kmaguir1. He made claims that the subject is not notable. This AfD creation is procedural- for now, I abstain Wafulz 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB Tom Harrison Talk 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Keep - significant mentions on Google Scholar, and from .edu domain. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Note that in the previous AfD debate, there were no "keep" recommendations; all participants said either to userfy or to delete. Those participants included User:Danny Yee himself who preferred to delete the content as he didn't want it on his user page. In fact, his user page states that the article Danny Yee is not particularly useful. Since the article's claim to notability for the subject is as an online book reviewer, I don't think he meets any WP:BIO criteria to such a degree that he ought to have an article about him even against his will. --Metropolitan90 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by editor (Kmaguir1) who does not care about subject, but is simply nominating out of unrelated edit conflict with article creator. • Apart from that, however, the "Google test" gives 155k hits for Yee, whose reviews are widely quoted, referenced and syndicated. Relatedly, Google scholar shows a rather substantial 365 mentions. The "author test" mentions readership of >5000: according to Yee's statements (see Talk:Danny Yee), he has gotten over a million hits on his reviews over the years—even if Yee's characterization of server logs isn't exactly accurate, the 5000 threshold is easy exceeded by two orders of magnitude. FWIW, Google groups shows 4260; and Alexa shows his homepage at 64,061. I also find it notable that his reviews have been slashdot frontpage stories repeatedly. • The prior AfD (over a year ago) was based on different, and inadequate, article contents that in fact failed to assert notability. LotLE×talk 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can I vote? He's not notable, he was judged to be so, by Metropolitan90's argument, he should be gone as it is--he doesn't meet any WP:BIO criteria--he's a simple online book reviewer. That's not notable. If I publish book reviews on the net, do I become notable? Ridiculous. -Kmaguir1 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure you can "vote". Although on Wikipedia the decision is not by the number of votes; it is by the merit of the argument. But a “vote” might have weight, I suspect some Admins understandably count votes when closing out the process. Regardless, craft your argument thoughtfully and it will have its day in "court".

      WP:BIO states clearly that it is not policy. But whether this article meets the emerging continuously emerging consensus on what is notable is still essentially the subject to debate—this debate (Wikipolicy is evanescent and virtual).

      And yes, if you publish enough on the net, even if you publish nowhere else, it is possible you can become notable. Williamborg (Bill) 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, regardless of the personalities involved in the discussion, this person is nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Notability is always such an interesting debate. Regardless of the allegation of bad faith nomination the question is, does Danny Yee meet a reasonable standard for notability. With 683,000 Google hits I'm willing to accept him, even if he's done little else—he's internet notable. If we get rid of all folks and topics this borderline, Wikipedia will have a lot fewer entries. I've only "voted" against a couple of notabilities today; I seem to like them all. Williamborg (Bill) 21:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that you can be notable and just be on the net, like a James Berardinelli, but it's very rare, and you have to be notable in an area that itself is notable--like Berardinelli, he's a movie reviewer. Billions of people have seen the movies he's reviewed, and he has a sufficient number and sufficient mention in non-internet sources to be considered notable. But Danny Yee? I think not. You'd have to say that the things his reviews are about are as popular as movies, the huge category of movies, or somewhere close and I think that that is not in evidence, from LotLE or from anyone else. -Kmaguir1 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only get 155,000 unique ghits, but even so, for a supposed Internet personality, he's really nn, I feel. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 155k is the right count: probably the larger number forgets the quotes around the name, i.e. both "danny"s and "yee"s... but still: how can 155K genuine hits be NN?! It's definitely not linkspam inflation, but genuine references. We argue on AfD's over whether a few hundred hits reaches notability... not whether over a hundred thousand hits does! LotLE×talk 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I garner over 16,000 Google Web hits for my name, all of which are me. To my amazement, I've recently discovered that I get Google Scholar hits. I'm unverifiable. Counting Google hits is not research. Actually reading the material that Google turns up is research. If you want to demonstrate notability, please cite sources of biographical material about this person. There's not a single source cited in either the article or this AFD discussion. Uncle G 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we're tied 3-3 so far. Let's see what further involvement from the community does. -Kmaguir1 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop counting votes and start looking for, reading, citing, and evaluating sources. Uncle G 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. It's also just a stub, and is fine as such. (Question: is it typical for the AfD nominator to also be a voter and a vote counter? Any other functions he should serve?)--Anthony Krupp 21:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion, not a vote count. It would be inappropriate for the nominator to close the discussion, but Kmaguir1 has a perfect right to make any other points he/she wishes. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zoe's got it right. For those new to the Wiki process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion policy states "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." You might want to read the rest of the section as well. Williamborg (Bill) 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And since my last remark seems a little rude, let me assure yoou everyone is welcome to contribute, new or not so new. But the individual closing is going to look to the merit of the argument, not the number voting. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LotLE.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that vote can't count--no one who has voted for me has been voting 'per me'. You can't vote because you have friends. Period.-Kmaguir1 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bakasuprman is saying that xe agrees with and is employing Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's rationale, which is perfectly fine. Uncle G 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response thats because vote for Kmaguir would be "per nom" and the fact that LotLE had a very good point. I am neither his friend, nor have I ever been associated with him outside this AfD.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN -72.147.230.148 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: IP address' first edit to Wikipedia (nominator previously blocked for sockpuppetry).
  • Keep External sources added.-Shazbot85Talk 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- NN pending addition of sources. I see no references except to his own personal website proper, and to a link within the website itself. He's not sourced anywhere else. Provide some sources or I'm throwing in for delete. -Shazbot85Talk 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Shazbot85, needs secondary references (published news articles, etc.) besides his own website. Many notable bloggers were cited in newpapers, and hence gain a place in wikipedia. --Vsion 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, change vote after references are added (thanks). He was cited in Magdalena Ball's published book. --Vsion 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone cited in a book gets to be on Wikipedia? Why don't we just add all six billion on here.-Kmaguir1 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incongruent comparison. He's been noted several times meaning his writings and thoughts have seen the light of day on a consistent basis. -Shazbot85Talk 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All this citation is doing is showing to the world how non-notable he really is. Not of this stuff is even remotely encyclopedic. The picture is gratuitous. He's not notable, and he hasn't become so since the last determination he wasn't. That's what you should be doing--you should be providing evidence that he's changed since the consensus of the community was to delete. Absent that, it's hard for anyone to objectively vote to uphold the page. -Kmaguir1 05:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't fine that much of an issue with keeping the article, I completely the picture is gratuitous especially in proportion to his notability. He is not notable for his in person presence - he isn't an actor, TV personality, model, etc. He is known for his words. --Ben Houston 01:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does having a picture have to do at all with someone's notability? There are plenty of people who are "known for [their] words" that have their images on Wikipedia, such as any major author: Ray Bradbury, H. G. Wells, J. K. Rowling, Karl Marx, etc. Ryūlóng 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I feel that the length of articles and content of articles should be reflective of a persons relative notability. Its a subjective thing and I'm just stating my opinion - no one says that you have to have the same opinion as mine, diversity is allowed here on Wikipedia. --Ben Houston 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I mention about a dozen bios of people not noted for their appearance that have pictures at User talk:Bhouston#Huh?!; none of them are "top importance bios" and some have shorter articles than Yee. Not to clutter Ben's page, but I think it's worth looking at the list. LotLE×talk 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but comparing the notability of Danny Yee, as much am I like his book reviews, to Tim Berners-Lee (the inventer of the web!), Michel Foucault (mega-star philosopher!), Frank Wilczek (nobel prizing winner - physics) is simply ridiculous. Although the others are more in line, but I notice that at least one of them is up for deletion. I think that LotLE is pushing the article towards vanity, but to be honest, it is pretty harmless either way -- its just Wikipedia. This is my last comment on the issue. --Ben Houston 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one up for deletion was nominated by Kmaguir1, and has only received one "delete" vote (guess whose). Obviously yes, you name the most famous three from my list above; look at the other ten too. There was actually a discussion recently on WP:LIVING's talk page, specifically about how desirable more subject pictures would be (no one disagreed, it was just a question of finding GFDL images). LotLE×talk 18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm trying hard to find something notable, but neither slashdotting nor board membering impresses me particularly. My conclusion is that he is notable to a very niche audience, too niche to be considered for an encyclopaedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course--I mean, this isn't even a close one, like the Raphael Samuel article. This guy has never seen print, and User:Anthony Krupp and User:Lulu of Lotus-Eaters are blinded by their personal involvement and their animus towards me, and prior history of personal attack and trying to get me in trouble with their friends.-Kmaguir1 15:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest, Kmaguir1: I created the Yee article long before you joined WP, so I hardly think my belief in his notability has anything to do with you. Moreover, I had heard of Yee, and read his reviews, long before I joined WP: I think I first heard of him in 1993-4 (before the WWW existed, probably), when his reviews were widely syndicated and discussed on Usenet. Yee has certainly "seen print" in terms of being mentioned in many books and newspapers; but in the last decade or more, a lot of publication is electronic-only. Not that it really matters, but Yee has repeatedly received book offers for collections of his reviews, but has declined to do that (if I were him, I think I'd have accepted; but I'm not him). LotLE×talk 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blinded? Nom's claim doesn't fit my edits. Advice: focus on content.--Anthony Krupp 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If Vsion deletes per Shazbot85, and Shazbot85 has retracted his delete vote, that seems to entail Vsion retracting his/her delete vote as well, barring an explicit comment. That's my take anyway. I'm sure the closing admin will read this correctly.--Anthony Krupp 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misunderstanding, Anthony. Although I'm pleased Vsion decided to revisit his/her vote, using a reason of "per So-and-so" doesn't pledge a vote or loyalty. It just means: "I vote this way for the same reasons enunciated by So-and-so". Just because one person changes their mind doesn't mean that everyone who was convinced by their original explanation must do so. LotLE×talk 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a long time reader of his book reviews, I first came across them in 1998. --Ben Houston 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad Faith Nom per LotLE Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Myles Long 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. I won't bother questioning if this was a good faith or bad faith nom. RFerreira 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article and notable enough, people could come to Wikipedia wanting to know more about him. bbx 08:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a bad faith nom. Passes WP:BIO and does not come close to CSD G4. And I find the way that Kmaguir1 berates anyone who he has had conflicts with in the past is just on the border of WP:NPA. Ryūlóng 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most lately, Kmaguir1 has taken to semi-vandalizing the article itself by removing the portrait image. LotLE×talk 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was another who felt the picture was inappropriate. Editing and deleting do not constitute vandalism, especially consensus editing and deleting.-Kmaguir1 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ì

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  10:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme iTalk[edit]

Article about a webforum, simply doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB. Upon checking, I find no evidence that it does, either. [18], [19] (only mentioned on ~20 different web sites, most are forums and non seem to be reliable sources. --W.marsh 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Delete. Non-notable forum that has only been around for 8 months with less than 150 members, created by a user whose vanity bio page has already been deleted. --Dennette 19:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as part of Taylor Hewitt's blatant self-promotion campaign. Not a CSD candidate - A7 does not cover web content. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete a non-notable web site.--RMHED 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Awyong has us on a legal technicality here; A7 doesn't cover websites. It certainly needs to go, though, as vanity. - Richardcavell 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with a recommendation that it be speedily deleted per WP:SNOW. Geoffrey Spear 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Up I think this forum deserves a spot on wikipedia. Taylor Hewitt 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Guys I'm not trying to promote myself! I'm a big user of wikipedia and I want to be part of it all. My forum will be one of the most popular in the world one day and then you will see that it deserved a spot a long time ago. Taylor Hewitt 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, no evidence from reliable sources that this site meets WP:WEB. And if your forum does become one of the most popular in the world one day, create an article, but until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 05:45, 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 Deville (Talk) 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogtronix[edit]

Around 200 unique Googles, every instance of the name Blogtronix is weblinked, release 1.0 in August, no external sources, no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. Article is the work of GeorgeAthannassov (talk · contribs), a person of that (unusual) name is the COO of Blogtronix. User's contributions are restricted to adding and puffing Blogtronix. Pretty fair evidence of meeting WP:SPAM. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and remark from George,

    What do I need to change so the Blogtronix article and company info stays in Wikipedia structure. We are a legidimate coprorate structure in US. If the weblinkage is a problem - I would immeaditely remove it

  • George: I did put the article. I removed the web links to Blogtronix website.
  • George: Thank you for the remarks. Can we consider these as references:
  • George again: another article mentioning Blogtronix in BusinessWeek:
  • Delete per nom. Still spam--Anthony.bradbury 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From George: Anthony, please indicate what I need to change so it is not considered as a spam. What is it different than the article for Movable Type? open the movable type article and tell me what is different! I will chaneg what I have to to have Blogtronix included in Wikipedia but you guys are not helping here, I know you are editors, not support center but the guidlines are not clear what i need to remove especially when I have the example with Movable type. They are in the same position we are in!
  • George: I edited the article additionaly - please check and advise.
    • Honestly speaking: There is no hope for your article at this point. It will be deleted. Change your company and your software first, before considering whether they deserve a Wikipedia article. Get mentioned on Forbes 500, become a Dow Jones companent stock, and get your software featured (not just mentioned in passing) in 5 newspapers first, and we might reconsider. Nothing's wrong with the article, it's the company (and the software) that isn't notable enough for an article at this stage. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; blatant vanispamcruftisement. Ryūlóng 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • George: What is "blatant" here? Does this mean you have double standards? Movable type can be included together with SixApart and Blogtronix can not. What is different in the two articles - none of the editors here can not point out. Did you check the latest update I just did? Compare it wtih Movable type and tell me where is the difference
    • Comment As it stands, this article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. To have a shot at being kept, you'd have to rewrite it to be an objective analysis of the company. As it stands, my vote will be Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • George: OK, I Understand. Thank you. I will take out some of the information that can be considered as an advertisement immediately.
  • George: I changed the article again. Danny, can you check it again. Awyong Jeffrey - I think your statement is a little incorrect. Being first in more than one aspects should allow us to be included in Wikipedia. Plus we do have way more than 5 articles about us in newspapers. We can not become Forbes or Fortune 500 company in 18 months but we are aiming there. There is nothing wrong with our software or company type - you do not know the Corporate Blogging software industry to state that We can not be included because we are nobody. I am honestly seeking advise how we can be inclued in wikipedia,i am not arguing with the editors. I need advise what to do as I am certain my opinion is valid as well as the infromation for Blogtronix which should reside in Wikipedia
  • another comment - TechCrunch http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/08/18/profile-blogtronix/ Plus the google results are over 162,000 !
  • Another one - Blogtronix is BlogOn Social Media Innovator: http://www.blogonevent.com/blogon2005/exhibitors/
  • The Latest Conference Office 2.0 Blogtronix is Key speaker company and Sponsor http://www.office20con.com/sponsors.html http://www.office20con.com/speakers.html
  • This is Vassil Mladjov,Vassil mladjov founder and ceo of Blogtronix. One thing I don't understand here is what are you guys talking about. Blogtronix is a company incorporated in the US, CA in Aug 2005. We just like, SocialText, SixApart, WordPress, JotSpot and many others make web 2.0 software and services. Why are any of our competitors here in Wikipedia and we can't be here? You guys have many articles about software companies for wikis and blogging Blog software, we are just one of these companies. Category:Proprietary wiki software

    So, if any of these companies are here, I do think that we should be here well. We will edit the info to a minimum, so it does not look like any commercial ad, but people are looking for us on the internet as our solutions is a best of breed for enterprises at the moment. (these are just not my words).

    Furthermore, according to your guidelines WP:SOFTWARE about software, it states that: "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden"

    More references about Blogtronix: Forrester Research http://www.forrester.com Official Corporate Blogging Reasearch papers by Forrester Research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassko (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28 01:32:43

    • Wikipedia is not a business directory for everyone, you and your competitors, to get a listing in, or for "people looking for us on the Internet" to look you up in. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If you want a directory for people to look you up in, get thee to Yellowikis! Our goal here is to write an encyclopaedia. We only retain articles on companies that satisfy certain criteria. If you want to have an article on a company, you must cite sources to show that it satisfies those criteria. You haven't cited a single non-trivial article, from a reliable source, about the company that isn't a straight rehash of a press release or corporate autobiography. Some of the web pages don't even mention the company at all. Uncle G 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George: Thank you Uncle G. I guess, we will get back to Wikipedia in a couple of months. BTW; All sites that are posted here have our company name on them and believe me the Report on Corporate Blogging from Forrester Research is quite non-trivial, reliable and independent source. There should not be a reason for Wikipedia editors to deal with our inclusion in such a manner when SixApart, iUpload, WordPress and JotSpot are listed here. Anyway - we will wait and will deal with this at a later date. I read very carefully what should be a reliable source and besides the fact that Mars is a planet and the Wikipedia editors have a DELETE button - i could not get any other or more information. I will really get back to wikipedia when the content we can put about Blogtornix is verifiable and understandable enough for the very general public that needs to be told that Mars is not only a chocolate bar but it is actually a planet!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2005 Little League World Series. Deletion is not an option here, in order ot preserve the edit history. Merging page histories would not be a good idea because the articles were developed separately until the contents of this page were pasted into the main article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Little League World Series/Results[edit]

Moved via cut-and-paste method JB82 19:22, 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 delete. —Mets501 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.bloggar[edit]

A freeware application. Kept by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/W.bloggar, no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar. Both predate WP:SOFTWARE. There is no assertion of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no evidence of non-trivial external coverage, and the homepage is now unavailable due to suspension of the account. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 19:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete. The w.bloggar site is back up and the software is freely available once again. 04 September 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.73.173 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per WP:V; no reputable, reliable sources provided. This article has had 20 months to be properly cited: if it hasn't happened yet, it probably won't. --Satori Son 03:38, 5 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 G1 self-contradicting nonsense. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker World cup 2006[edit]

Content is creator's imagination. Not encyclopedic. Talk messages posted on the main article. --Húsönd 19:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete if possible, otherwise just delete. This article describes a purported soccer tournament which England purportedly won and in which Ukraine's Andriy Shevchenko was the purported leading scorer, even though England and Ukraine aren't listed in the results as playing any games (much less did they participate in real life). Note that the article currently says, "Please DO NOT EDIT. Please do not bother editing I will just write this page all over again I have a copy on word and also a backup copy just incase." --Metropolitan90 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect per page creator's threat. Danny Lilithborne 20:44, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poachers[edit]

Does not assert notability. Delete. Green caterpillar 18:04, 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. The main author of the article (the only user who argued to keep the article) agrees with deletion now as well. —Mets501 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cell[edit]

Non-notable attempt to build a perpetuum mobile including spam for the usual suspects. Delete or at best merge a hugely condensed version into Water fuel cell. --Pjacobi 19:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer pjacobi:

I created this article. I'm currently editing this from various sources. I have no relationship with any of the individuals mentioned in the article. I'm not even in the same country. I don't know where you got the idea of "spam" from. What part of the article contains spam exactly? I don't understand why you think this is any less notable then any other over-unity device claims on wikipedia which are equally wild. I don't understand why you think this article should be condensed or why you think it is the same as the water fuel cell article which it is clearly not.

Here's why I think it should stay:

  • I wrote the article from a sceptical point of view.
  • I make clear none of the claims are validated.
  • I put the article is pseudoscience and perpetual motion categories - I never attempted to suggested it belonged anywhere else.
  • Any rational person reading this should realise that it's not realistic or conventioanl science.
  • Erroneous or disputed claims about science still have a place in an encylopedia for historical value provided they are presented as such. I don't agree with the idea of removing a claim because it is wrong. Instead, explain why it is wrong.

I know the over-unity Joe cell claim is questionable, I'm not an idiot. I just thought it was a interesting claim that was undocumented on wikipedia.

kesfan 20:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hate pseudoscience, but at least it is correctly categorized. Inclined to argue for delte, but will watch the discussio.

To answer user Williamborg (above comment): I don't like scientology and think it's absolutely hillarious bunk, but I haven't attempted to delete the wikipedia page on it.

I don't believe in Joe cells and am a scpetic, however I don't think it's valid to erase a claim from history just because it's complete rubbish. I think it is interesting to research why people believe in it and the evidence either way. I was hoping people would add evidence over time to debunk the Joe cell claim (or indeed support it if they want to).

If you don't point out the folly of the past, then people will just repeat it. I'd wager that if you delete this article, someone else will recreate it and this argument will start over again.

I was concerned that somebody marked the article as factually in dispute. I've tried to refer to "claims" in the article as not to represent the information as fact. If you think the sceptical balance if not sufficient then please let me know and I'll see what I can do to rephrase it.

--kesfan 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy http://www.thejoecell.com/ has a credible sounding explanation for the Joe cell effect which might generate some worthwhile discussion. I've asked permission to include his theory as he specifically requests that you do so. Just waiting for a response. --kesfan

Please don't. That would be against WP:NOR. In the area of natuaral science and engineering, unless stuff becomes published in credible sources, it can't be taken at face value for an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 06:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In answer to Pjacobi: My understanding of the root of your difficulties with this article is that your are concerned it may be confused with peer reviewed engineering. Do you think it is in the wrong categories? I thought I'd got it about right.

Refering back to my comparison with scientology. Look at this article on the e-meter to which are attached unsubstantiated wild claims by principally a single person. The article describes what the device is from a dispationate point of view, the theories about it and then presents an undertone of gentle scepticism. That's what I'd like to do here.

With the Joe cell, I don't see anything sinister going on. It's a bunch of Australians having fun with an effect they don't understand because none of them have got the training or resources to figure it out - hence the crackpot theories and questionable claims.

There's at least 50,000 web pages mentioning "Joe cell" which shows some public interest in the device and makes it distinct from any other device/claims. So would you rather people come to wikipedia where they're going to (over time) get a balanced view, or go to some other web site written by an individual with a particular bias? Or worse try and buy one on ebay (of which they are for sale) without reading what people think about the theory behind the device.

--kesfan 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got a new compromise suggestion. What if I drop the "theory" and "conspiracy claims" sections and just keep the history and construction sections?

End with something like:

Numerous people (give list, videos etc) have made claims to have operational Joe cells although none have been peer reviewed or made available for indepedant scrutiny.

Several people have independently produced their own theories as to how a Joe cell may operate - then give external references and links - but none have been verified. So the actual theories don't appear on wikipedia and hence there isn't any implied credibility from wikipedia?

What do you think? --kesfan 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for a start, the e-meter is of clearly superior notability, completely independent of the question how and if it "works".
But regarding Perpetual motion machines, we have to do some filtering. Building a machine that doesn't work, isn't notable in itself, even if the machine would revolutinize the world, if it works. Also getting a patent, setting up a webpage, or getting an entry at PESWiki isn't a notable achievement. For this reasons, most claims of Perpetual motion machines are not notable enough to get reported here. If a device gets some media attention, at least some reporters were tricked to believe the claims, some gullible investors were relieved of excess money -- OK, that's the threshold where a sentence at History of perpetual motion machines may be considered.
Whether any single device article within Category:Perpetual motion machines deserves an article for itself can be questioned (and more often than not was questioned by AfD).
Wait, wait, you may say, it's not prooven, that it doesn't work. But here Occam's razor is a mighty axe. Any such invention over 10 years ago but today
  • No physics textbooks are re-written to account for this "free energy"
  • Inventor didn't get Nobel prize
  • Inventor not even rich or famous
  • Aramco still a solid enterprise
So Joe Cell is a rather clear-cut case. Very fresh claims of perpetual motions are somewhat more problematic, see Steorn which seems undeletable (in the moment). But they at least spent some money for press coverage.
Finishing may rather long comment I want to say, that my initial reaction may have been too harsh against you personally: Yes the article takes a cautious approach to formulations and the amount of spam (two or three links to PESWiki) is not obscene.
Pjacobi 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think I'd disagree with you over threshold. Wikipedia has a lot lower threshold for interest than say a science journal. If there was a concern over the overall size, then someone would have gone round and deleted all the rediculous pages on every minor science fiction character that's ever graced a paragraph in a Star Wars novel.

You imply that there have previously been a lot of perpetual motion claims placed in wikipedia that have been deleted. I don't think it's such a great idea to delete them in case someone looks up the claim by popular name.

OK, how about this. A lot of machine claims will fall into categories e.g. water fuel cell, permanent magnet motor etc (steorn?).

Create a page on perpetual motion machine claims (distinct from the page describing the meaning of perpetual motion), which is essentially a table or list of the popular names/orignators of the claims against links to a generalised description of the claim (and debunking etc). Then in the table/list you can be put how the specific claim varies against the generalised description.

This will stop similar claims proliferating as sets of pages under differing names and avoid the requirement to debunk each claim individually.

--kesfan 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources given/found. Wickethewok 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I withdraw my article as I see it's too controversial to ever remain. I see I'm not going to win this one and I don't want to annoy anyone. I think though you need a better policy on dealing with perpetual motion machine claims than "delete" as they'll just keep coming back from different people. I think there is benefit in listing claims by popular name as that's what people will Google on. --kesfan 15:03, 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 CSD A7 no assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Whittier[edit]

Vanity article on obscure author who is void of any notability. Article was previously marked for speedy delete but the article's author decided to remove it without contacting anyone. --Mecanismo | Talk 19:59, 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. Friday (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Martelli[edit]

Not notable. -Kmaguir1 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Nomination based on bad faith by nominator, who does so only to "get even" at article creator (me, more or less, after copyvio fix). Martelli is author of two widely selling programming books (greatly past the 5000 reader threshhold of the "author test"), has 22 Google scholar cites, and 312k general "Google test" hits. LotLE×talk 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— In the interest of full disclosure I'd previously found a PROD on the article and deleted it with the comment "PROD Removed - Easy to establish notability via Google - And not on Wiki:AfD yet." Now that it is on AfD, let me summarize my thoughts. Notability is always contentious, and notability (people) is not Wikipedia policy so we have no absolute standard. However it is reasonable to accept its stated position that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. My previous opinion holds. If the bad faith assertion LotLE makes is valid, that's unfortunate— I’d prefer to take this on face value as a challenge to notability— on simple notability Alex Martelli warrants space on Wikipedia. And yes, my arguments for today are getting a little redundant; probably time to go to bed... Williamborg (Bill) 20:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what the community thinks. -Kmaguir1 21:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, author of multiple published works that are well reviewed by independent resources. Recognized in his subject matter. Seems to meet WP:BIO; all of this seems to be covered in the article, though, so I assume there is more to this? Was the counterpoint ever articulated? Kuru talk 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly notable, author of mutliple books published by a reputable publisher. -- Whpq 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per arguments by constructive editors.--Anthony Krupp 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published by O'Reilly. I trust their judgement wrt notability Kim Bruning 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:47, 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 Deleted and redirected to Homer the Great.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stonecutters Club[edit]

There has to be a limit to the Simpsons trivia; this club appears to have been referenced in exactly one episode, Homer the Great. I remember the song, but it's not like it's a recurring character or gag - it's a one-off that can be included, in trimmed form, at the episode article. It does not even seem to have achieved widespread memedom like Can't sleep clowns will eat me; only 594 Ghits. -- nae'blis 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Homer the Great. Danny Lilithborne 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Gazpacho 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I'm sure it will be a usefule redir to at least a few people who don't know the name of the ep. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above -- Whpq 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Google presence is much higher than 594 hits, since the name of the organization is simply "The Stonecutters" (not "The Stonecutters Club"). I actually got 29,200 hits for Stonecutters + Simpsons.
However, I still don't think the Stonecutters deserve their own article, since they only appeared in a single episode (excluding non-canonical stuff, like video games and comic books). They are very well-known, but most of the info in Stonecutters Club is redundant with what is found in the episode page. Redirect per above. Zagalejo 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge Richard001 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is way too long an article for an organisation that appeared in only one episode. DJ Clayworth 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever you decide, but the organisation infobox can find its way into the episode page. ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere between Merge into Homer the Great and Keep. Looks like it can be salvaged one way or another. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 02:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The level of detailed Simpsons trivia belongs on Wikia and not here. See the Muppet Show articles. The Muppet Wikia is much more detailed whereas the articles here on Wikipedia are more to the point. The Simpsons project could learn from that kind of seperation. Having said that though... thumbs up for the incredble work that has been put into the Simpsons articles here. it is just that there has to be some kind of limit. MartinDK 16:34, 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)  10:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dellegatto[edit]

Article does not establish notablity of subject, as per Wikipedia:Notability (people). People in Tampa, Florida may recognize this person, but he seems to have little notability beyond this limited area, since he is not working for a national television outlet. Additionally, there is nothing mentioned that would give him any national or international notablity, all the Google hits are related to his work at his television station and seem to be all on Florida based websites. I have never been to Tampa and I have never heard of him, and I am guessing that he will fail the name recognition test when people not from Tampa, Florida are asked He fails the widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers test, the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field test, the multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers test, the large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following test, the commercial endorsements test, the independent biography test, the persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events test (being a TV weatherman seems not to be involvement), the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person test, the 100 year test (future speculation), the 100 year test (past speculation), and finally the autobiography test, as this been written by someone closely involved with the subject. WEVZ 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has appeared on Fox News Channel numerous times during hurricanes, even when they don't affect the Tampa Bay area. Nom may be a Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet. --CFIF ☎ 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many local reporters appear on cable news channels, but are not regular contibutors and doesn't make them any more notable then they aren't. I have known several people who have appeared on the Fox News Channel on occasion, and they are even less notable. I think if he was a regular contributor he would be worthy of incusion. The nominator does hit on the salient notiblity crietria. It should also be noted that, CFIF who votes keep above, is the creator of the article, so his sockpuppet accusations of the nominator may be in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. CFIF also has a history of doing this in other AFDs. TV Newser 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing there which suggests that the subject is worthy of inclusion. The assertion of "one of one of the 5 meteorologists that are certified broadcast meteorologists at WTVT" is not very impressive. If the subject, however, was one of the 5 certified broadcast meteorologists in the country, that could make him notable. Ohconfucius 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chief meteorologist with 16 years experience at the station and numerous national appearances. This almost definitely gives him name recognition in the area. Kirjtc2 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not estblish notablity and does not meet notability criteria. Lost Knob 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination and above. Note: I am not related to CFIF.CEIF © 02:46, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of proverbial pairs[edit]

Indiscriminate list of X and/or Y phrases Carlossuarez46 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Normally I have no problem with lists, but this goes too far. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easy for this reaction to become a reflex. But we must fight that, and consider each article on its merits as an article, irrespective of the original author. For a good reason for avoiding the reflex, witness the fact that this article was actually created by Jay (talk · contribs), and that Nintendude (talk · contribs) has never edited it, causing that rationale to completely fall apart. Uncle G 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's a metaphor; Nintendude made a lot of ridiculous lists early on. But I guess I'll go back to calling it "listcruft". :/ Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete come on, this is taking the.... well, anyway, lets just say it's totally unnecessary. - Blood red sandman 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Wikipedia may not be an indiscriminate collection of information but our policy does not address this kind of list yet. Our current proscribed lists are: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks & annotated texts, and 7) Plot summaries. So we are not dealing with something that is strictly excluded by existing policy. This list has been edited by over 20 people before nomintated for deletion—the people have spoken with their fingers—it is useful because someone is using it—keep it. And perhaps we need to address at the Wikipolicy level. Williamborg (Bill) 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. The number of editors has no bearing at all. That's an utterly silly metric to be using. We've had unencyclopaedic articles edited by many more people than that. Furthermore, we have plenty of guidelines for the appropriate topics for lists, given at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines rather than upon fallacious "Lots of people have edited it, therefore we must keep it." arguments. Uncle G 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly agree one should base one's arguments on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and I can see that you feel strongly about this topic, but your arguments were not specific. Specifically I'd appreciate a quote from Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) that precludes this type of list. I see nothing there that would guide this discussion in one direction of another. Thanks in advance - Williamborg (Bill) 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is you, who are putting forward the keep/delete opinion, that should be quoting Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). And there's plenty of guidance there, and things that one can base a rationale upon. Please actually read the page. Uncle G 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)

      After reading Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and I readily acknowledge I don't read with the wisdom and insight of an administrator such as yourself, I find it of little assistance in providing insight whether this is valid or not. I still have the impression that we are not dealing with something that is strictly excluded by existing policy (nor for that matter mandated by current policy).

      That said, it is not my intent to incur the enmity of an administrator, so I'll leave this discussion quietly. I do appreciate your efforts to educate me on Wikipolicy. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.--RMHED 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this list has potential. I don't think this is a topic that's going to attract much cruft (unlike List of Nintendo characters which was miraculously kept). Irongargoyle 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's already mostly cruft, no citations of any usage either proverbially or idiomatically; bacon & eggs usually refers to a pig-and-chicken-ova meal, and pairing Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak is just a fact, you could put any (and every) two famous collaboraters or antagonists together and make a pair: Sacco and Vanzetti, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Hitler and Stalin, Hitler and Churchill, or as a "contrast" just some nice people with some less savory ones: Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer. There's no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, no indication here of what makes a pair "proverbial" rather than merely descriptive. Gazpacho 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I started the list, in fact I categorized and started all lists in the Lists of pairs page. I did it at a time when Wikipedia:Category was not yet conceptualized, and there was just one long standalone list List of famous pairs. Extracted the content for all lists from the master list. I haven't visited these lists lately, but I do see a lot of worthy contributions made. If this list is not for wikipedia, where should it go ? Wiktionary ? Proverbial pairs are some kind of information. If the list has become indiscriminate, control it, if trivial, remove the entries, if the definitions are not clear, define them better. Jay 19:53, 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 flagged as copyvio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gill & macmillan[edit]

Entirely un-noteworthy. Fails WP:CORP and WP:NN. Blood red sandman 20:59, 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 05:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlingwood Mall[edit]

Entirely NN, as are almost all malls. Also, malls are businesses, and so WP:CORP aplies to it, which it fails. Just another dime a dozen local interest page. Blood red sandman 21:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • TO BE KEEPED Hey! This one of Ottawa's main shopping centre with over 120 stores and is one of the most senior friendly places across the city. NO IT DEFINITELY STAYS AS AN ARTICLE Also I'm sure there much more smaller malls that have survived deletion --JForget 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The above doesn't address the fact that it is, indeed, NN and local in scope. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With more than 100 stores it is a fairly major mall in a fairly major city. As to your contention that very few malls deserve articles, precedent would seem to disagree. A look through Category:Shopping malls by country will show that we already have hundreds if not thousands of articles on malls. - SimonP 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In keeping with the spirit of WP:CORP, however... [Check Google hits]. Almost all of those hits are local directories and trivial publications. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick search of Canadian newspaper archives finds a couple hundred press stories mentioning the mall. - SimonP 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between mentioning something and being about something. Uncle G 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Almost all"? What about the ones that aren't? Uncle G 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • this seems to be about the shopping centre, for example, and is definitely not a business directory listing. Uncle G 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep. The spirit of WP:CORP is to keep us from having to maintain pages on every small company that would like more visibility by having an article on Wikipedia. This is a large mall. There's no danger of not having WP:V information; newspaper articles get written about malls all the time. As an example, here is an article about a labour dispute there. Frankly, I'm not at all sure what "not notable" means in terms of shopping malls, but I don't think it would be outrageous if we have articles for each of the ten largest shopping malls in the capital city of Canada. Jkelly 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh! Beaten! I was just about to point to this. Uncle G 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way: The beauty of WP:CORP is that you don't have to know what notability means for shopping malls, because you don't judge the notability yourself. You let the world do it. Uncle G 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we judge shopping malls by whether or not they are traded on a well known index? That doesn't make sense to me. I think the verifiability concern is the one we should be strictest about. Jkelly 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why have you completely skipped over the first criterion of WP:CORP? Uncle G 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't that trying to say the same thing as "we need verifiable sources to write an article"? If it isn't, I suspect it should. Jkelly 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sources aren't verifiable. It is articles that are or are not verifiable. Moreover, your suspicion is wrong. Notability is not verifiability. Verifiability alone gets one the Yellow Pages. Uncle G 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, poor wording on my part. Jkelly 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. I think it's funny that we have to verify an entity that can easily be checked with a phone book or directory assistance. I'm not in favor of every two-bit mall getting an article (maybe a 100-store minimum should be instituted) but I can't see why this one doesn't deserve an article any less than the others on the category cited above). 23skidoo 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Malls are notable -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Malls are no less notable than, for instance, high schools. Kirjtc2 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per precedent; also notable building and one of the oldest such landmarks in a major city (established 50 years ago). Dl2000 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: definitely important. — Editor at Large ( talk) 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORP --Usgnus 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, appears to be well sourced to boot. RFerreira 07:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that maintaining such articles as this contribute to Wikipedia's reputation as a whole as an encycolopedia that covers almost anything imaginable. At present this particular article gives a nice concise synopsis of the mall's niche, hours, businesses, bus links, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilles f. pirionne (talk • contribs)
User's 8th edit. Kirjtc2 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, large malls are notable. bbx 08:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa Bacl-presby 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP What he said (project ottawa) this is a major landmark in the National capital of the second largest country in the world. cmacd 16:09, 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)  09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg King, Kingimation[edit]

nn musician for two nn bands, created a tv series that lasted all of two episodes. Adding Kingimation here, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could not verify any of the information searching using google, yahoo, and no listing that appears to match him on IMDB. -- Whpq 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GOOGLE. Also, there's no way where we can verify any of the article's content, as there are only 3 hits generated on "Kingimation". --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  21:37, 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. Deville (Talk) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotuit/[edit]

non-notable company, prod was removed by the only contributor. --DrTorstenHenning 07:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising. It has products in media space. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article does not look overtly advertisement like. The company appears to meet critera 1 of WP:CORP. A cursory search and read through news.google.com for them seems to indicate quite a few press articles. It does look like the article title is a type though with the / at the end. -- Whpq 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mallanox 22:16, 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, Petros471 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be Gotuit, not Gotuit/. Anyway, the company has had its fair share of press releases, so it's definitely a keeper (passes WP:CORP --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, no you didn't. You copy-paste moved it, and I had to copy-paste move it back. Right now, I abstain from this deletion discussion. Ryūlóng 23:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, yes, I did fix it. It should be at Gotuit. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ryūlóng's point was that when you do a makeshift page move by copying and pasting text rather than using the move function, you break apart the logs and histories. When a redirect prevents the page move function, an admin needs to take care of it. Fireplace 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see. Thank you for your more civil explanation! PT (s-s-s-s) 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You repeated your copy and paste move. That is not how pages should be moved- you should use the 'move' tab at the top of the page, as I have just done now. Petros471 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Press releases and media reprints of press releases specifically do not satisfy WP:CORP. Fireplace 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looking at the authorship and the style of article, it was clearly created by a person with commercial interest. It seems to be an upmarket version of youtube or myspace. One patent does not a notable corp make. It has 40 employees. Ohconfucius 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. Deville (Talk) 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway poker[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in the pub one day Blood red sandman 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a game (Personal attack removed) (Googleyii 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

theres a movie http://imdb.com/title/tt0818537/ about it its played all over the world and (Personal attack removed) it was invented in Japan on a subway and there was a pod on Current TV (Googleyii 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

and http://tubepoker.com/ and if "Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in the pub one day" then i guess the Guinness Book of Records article should be deleted. (Googleyii 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(all three of mine are one big Strong Keep)

  • Strong Delete nn fad that's in an nn documentary by an nn director. Yawn. Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Documentary? I see no claim that it's a documentary. My assumption is that it's fiction (note the claim on the film's site that it's "an entirely original short film"). — Haeleth Talk 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep first of all prove that its just a fad and if it is twenty years and worldwide popularity is not a fad a fad would be something like wikimedia (69.69.160.132 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)) P.S. if "Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in the pub one day" then i guess its not a place for you[reply]
    • Comment I was made up in a pub one day? You don't make sense. You're the one that has to prove that it's not just a fad. And links to non-notable films by first-time directors don't hack it. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified reliable sources can be provided to support the notability of the activity of subway poker.-- danntm T C 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Substantially all relevant Google hits are in connection with the short film mentioned above. No relevant Google Groups hits as would be expected for a significant fad. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; non-notable game. Hard to separate fact from fiction; it's possible that it was invented in Japan as claimed, and indeed I found one website that describes, in passing, a game called "地下鉄ポーカー" (chikatetsu pōkā = "subway poker")... but it's the only website Google knows about that contains any mention of such a game in Japanese, which hardly suggests a famous game invented 20 years ago and controlled by criminal syndicates, as the film apparently claims. Basically, fails WP:V in its current state. (And the picture is a copyright violation that must be deleted ASAP.) — Haeleth Talk 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The truth is Tube Poker is a multi- award wining fake documentary. The game (Subway Poker/Tube Poker) is actually the brainchild of director Simon Levene, however the popularity of the short film is such that the game IS now actually played for real by kids all over the world!!! And it is widely publicised and known about throughout the W.W.W. It is a case of life imitating art
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  09:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 1948[edit]

A WP:SOAPBOX. What's next, After 1949? We already have extensive articles on the conflict, on the history of the region, of the peoples, politics, ideologies, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:36, 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 G1 by User:Syrthiss. ColourBurst 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball UD[edit]

De-proded. This is a "fan made comic" that includes no assertion of notability, just a rambling plot synopsis. Scientizzle 21:49, 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)  09:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Black[edit]

Non-notable character for one episode. — ERcheck (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without redirect. The name is way too generic. Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a minor character in a single episode of the Simpsons. -- Whpq 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appeared in one episode of the Simpsons. Big deal. There have been thousands of characters that have appeared on the show. Would you include all of those people as well? I would think not. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— We desparately need criteria for comics and cartoons. Williamborg (Bill) 22:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. El Cid 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Heimstern Läufer 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if a redirect is desired, it would be to Kamp Krusty but I'm not really in favor of that due to the genericness of the character name. Regarding the criteria for comic and cartoon characters, WP:FICT is the relevant guideline. --Metropolitan90 03:05, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Henry[edit]

Nothing in the article suggests notability outside of Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete come in Diane, your 15 minutes of fame are up. --RMHED 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate Keep It depresses me to see so many articles of this nature, but she passes WP:BIO. AdamBiswanger1 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The precedent for people like her on reality shows is that she is more comparable to a contestant on a game show, not an actress or a creative participant on a fiction/nonfiction TV program. If she ever does anything else to make a name for herself in the world (as William Hung has done), then that'll be different. wikipediatrix 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She passes WP:BIO because she came in 3rd place in Big Brother and she has a fan base (can be seen when you google her). --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— with a dismayed voice. AdamBiswanger1 said it well enough for me. Williamborg (Bill) 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for involvement in different seasons of hit show. Pretty easily passes WP:BIO's coverage criterion. This is a discussion on notability, not a vote on genre popularity. Dislike/disdain/disrespect for a genre of entertainment (even if warranted), shouldn't cause related articles to be removed for no good reason. Even if you exclude most BB contestants, those who reappeared on the All Stars show, rise above most of the rest, and warrant an article.--Rob 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this mean Jeopardy contestants who come back for the end-of-season tournament should also get an article? wikipediatrix 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally, no, because Jeopardy is not about the contestants personally. A viewer watching Jeopardy learns about 30(?) seconds of information about an individual contestant. There's virtually no independent coverage of contestants (e.g. not counting the show itself as a source), so virtually nothing verifiable could ever be said about a Jeopardy contestant (beyond winnings). However, the *entire* Big Brother show is about the contestants lives. More signficantly, there is ample independent coverage, which allows for a proper neutral verifiable biography on the person. As a simple test, watch both shows. Then, search for independent information on all the participants. You will then learn the difference between them. A good litmus test for determining if you can write a biogrpahy on a show participant, is to ask: what if the person and the show lied about everything in their personal life. Would anybody notice? In the case of Jeopardy, (usually) nobody would know or care if somebody gave bogus bio information on themselves. However, in case of Big Brother, people will know and care very often, and discrepancies will be reported on. Now, if the lives of Jeopardy contestants eventually gains a comparable degree of independent coverage, than I would change my views on it. --Rob 23:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't nominate the article for deletion because of a dislike/disdain/disrespect for anything, I nominated it for deletion because I didn't think the subject was notable. It was a good faith nomination, and popularity wasn't even thought about when I listed the article. talk to JD wants e-mail 23:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you, or have you, made nominations of actors with a comparable level of involvement in a comparable hit show? --Rob 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would only nominate an article for deletion if I feel the subject is not notable, and I do not believe that having participated on Big Brother is enough reason to have an article about a person, especially when the only information in the article would be more contextual in the articles about the individual seasons of the show. talk to JD wants e-mail 23:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:BIO... --TheM62Manchester 23:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notable like many other reality TV show contestants, in the same way a turd in a swimming pool is notable, but still if that's the criteria...--RMHED 23:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not notable.-Kmaguir1 06:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information in this article can be found in the Big Brother pages. A-Supreme 03:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known personality. Her notability is not in doubt.Unitedroad 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:BIO standards for coverage by outside sources. --Benjaminx 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wikipediatrix, although it is one of the more professional pages on Wikipedia. The JPStalk to me 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the involvement in two seasons of Big Brother. bbx 06:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems to pass WP:BIO. --Myles Long 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect. Does not meet WP:BIO -- Comedy240 20:47, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Cooper[edit]

Child actress who was in one Stargate SG-1 episode. Someone tagged it for speedy, but this article makes an assertion of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-27 22:48Z

  • Delete. She made one appearance on the TV show, only because her father is the executive producer of the show. If she had done more TV and/or film work, then maybe I would reconsider. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, one-time appearance by a relative of a producer. El Cid 00:30, 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)  09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with ADHD (second nomination)[edit]

The first AfD for this article ended in no consensus. Original research and somewhat speculative as well (some of the characters to my knowledge aren't diagnosed with it, but editors just seem to put them on there if they seem hyper enough to them). I think this would also count as an indiscriminate list of information, but I'm not sure. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, inconsistently formatted and the other concerns mentioned. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the premise of this article is somewhat interesting, but hampered by the fact that even casting WP:NOR aside, the disorder is overdiagnosed anyway. Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOR, speculative, and WP:NOT.-- danntm T C 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has some sources, and could easily be sourced completely-- there are actually many fictional characters who are portrayed as having ADHD. That eliminates the supposed OR problem and "speculative" criticism. ADHD is a real, medically recognized disorder and this list has inherent interest. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Comment, an alternative, should this fail to be deleted again, would be to merge it. Real disorder or not, how many fictional characters are actually diagnosed with it? Two of the entries in that list are guesses. A simple "ADHD in fiction" section in the main article would be a decent alternative to this short list. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:23, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Holdem Forums[edit]

Vanity entry for totally un-notable, low traffic website. 2005 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:VAIN; fails WP:WEB. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had prod'ed as failing WP:WEB, the prod was removed when this AFD nomination was made. It is a waste of the communities resources to AFD nominate on top of a prod, but my opinion on the article is unchanged. GRBerry 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fold, er, I mean Delete as WP:VAIN and failing WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and doesn't warrant an article. Rray 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely no evidence that site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Essexmutant 22:21, 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)  09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Dorssers[edit]

Notability not established for this WP-BIO-failing contestant on obscure Canadian game show/competition. wikipediatrix 22:56, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of war[edit]

Seems to me like a non-notable vanity page for a band that has neither tourned nor released any albums. Google finds 2 irrelevant matches. Ardent†∈ 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under {{db-band}}. --Wafulz 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Wafulz. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GOOGLE. Seems like self-promotion. --  Nishkid64  Talk Contribs  23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment wasn't a self-promotion, he just beat me to editing the afd page. Left a note on his userpage, article should probably be speedy deleted. Ardent†∈ 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. I misread, I thought you meant self-promotion to afd. Sorry Ardent†∈ 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you ask me i think this should stay because wikipedia is all about sharing facts not about deleting the little guy fine go ahead and delete cause were not some big hot shots but that will just prove my point that the world is stupid and its no longer about the art or the music. Wikipedia is just a place for us to share the thoughts behind a unique sound. It sounds like school of rock but hey that movie is right lets think about the art. I think it would be a major mistake.
    • The preceding unsigned comment was contributed by User:Climberchild (Talk), the creator of the site in question. Ardent†∈ 23:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, you talk about sharing facts. Do you have any sources from newspapers, magazines, etc, reviewing this band? Remember, it's hard to corroborate facts without reliable sources. ColourBurst 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia isn't about the art or the music, or about sharing one's thoughts with the world. You have your own web pages for that. It's about writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you came here wanting to promote things or to make some protest statement about "the world", then you came here with the wrong idea entirely. Uncle G 01:41, 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)  09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Temple[edit]

Procederial nomination, contested PROD Yanksox 23:42, 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 - sockpuppetry is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Roucka[edit]

Because WP is not a crystal ball 1 and just because one is signed to a WWE developmental territory does not mean they are instantly notable or that they would appear on WWE programming beyond diva search. Renosecond 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the sooner the better. --Yamla 00:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I can't believe how many WWE Diva Search-related attempted deletions I've stumbled into over the past couple days. Allow me to use some precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Weber This discussion was just resolved a day ago in favor of keep. I think we've pretty well established that people who are featured as contestants on the Diva Search are notable, particularly in a case like this where they had been featured on television for weeks and weeks. -Umdunno 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Amy Weber is much more notable at this moment than the one I just flagged for deletion. This person has been on WWE TV, usually in a brief, non-speaking role, as a CONTESTANT for maybe 3 or 4 weeks. Webber was probably notable enough anyway due to her role on Son of the Beach, even before the diva search. That is a horrible, piss-poor precedent, not even a shade comparable to this. I think my "crystal ball" agrument is far stronger than yours. Renosecond 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm going to apologize for claiming the Diva Search precedent, as I hadn't realized yet so many were up for deletion (as you well know) though I don't think it would make a "piss-poor" precedent. Anyway, let's see where all these articles end up.-Umdunno 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and I added a comment to your talk page about the current discussion about this whole Diva Search situation in the relevant Wikiproject. -Umdunno 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Umdunno. TJ Spyke 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as with other reality show contestants, unless there is some other documentation of notability, there does not need to be a separate article. -- Whpq 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "just because one is signed to a WWE developmental territory does not mean they are instantly notable or that they would appear on WWE programming" This could be said of nearly anyone currently in a developmental territory, and if that is the precident by which deletions will be made, many more would have to occur beyond this one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.106.90 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep She'e more than a reality show contestant. From what I looked up, she's been on WWE television for more than the past month and she was recently contracted to the WWE following the contest. She's a model and actress so I think since she's contracted to WWE, there's probably going to be more updates on her new job in the near future. I think it's safe to say that she meets WP:N. — The Future 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please I have needed lots of info on her lately, and this has been the best place to find it. All of the Diva Search contestants should be kept on Wikipedia at least until the next Diva Search takes place. If the contestants aren't in the WWE by that time, it is safe to delete her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.180.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Undelete Although Milena did not win the Diva Search contest, she just signed a contract with WWE. She is going to be a WWE diva and she may debut very shortly. Don't delete because when she debuts, she's having storylines and all becomes part of her history. I AM LOVE 01:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I think you mean Keep, it wasn't deleted yet, so undelete doesn't make sense :) — The Future 02:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please discount the above vote from an abusive sockpuppet which has been permanently banned. --Yamla 02:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps further down the line, but it's WAY too early to say that she's notable enough for an entry. Deputy Marshall 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm hoping that more users who aren't fanbois will talk on this discussion, but here are some other Diva Search contestants who have recently been deleted: 1, 2, 3, 4 and several speedied ones. Renosecond 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since when has simply being a contestant in a contest been notable? --Dennette 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reno, none of those contestants got contracts. Milena has recieved a WWE contract, which helps her notability. TJ Spyke 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it helps a tiny bit, but being signed to a contract means that there is no gaurantee that she will have any role in future WWE programming, even being in the development territories does not promise instant notability. Look at the deletion review for Amy Zidian [20], she is in the same exact boat as this, and it will probably not pass. Getting signed to a contract does not mean anything at this point, let's wait and see, WP is not a cyrstal ball. Renosecond 02:59, 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 keep. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute Professor[edit]

A title used at one academic institution; not at all notable. The contents of this article include a three-sentence definiton (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) followed by a list of people who hold the title, the latter of which is sufficiently covered at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people (I copied the definition over to that page).

  • Delete as nominator. Kane5187 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not some obscure community college; it's a place where no one gets this title without being more than sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. Many articles exist on notable professors at MIT who are not Institute Professors; it seems absurd to consider them more notable than those who are. Michael Hardy 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First off, I did sign this nomination, in writing "Delete as nominator" for the first recommendation. Next, the implication of this AfD is not that the people who hold this title are not notable, just that an entire article on the title itself is not notable. Honestly, beyond the short definition and list of people, what else could possibly be added to the article? This really can't expand beyond a dictionary definition. And furthermore, what stands to be gained by maintaining this article alongside List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, where all the same information resides? What makes that second article insufficient enough to merit this one? Kane5187 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "what else could possibly be added...?" is rash. The history of the title, the process by which these persons are appointed, the politics of appointments, the duties of Institute Professors (Isidore Singer told me that he has "no formal duties" (although he was required to write an annual report on his professional activities; I presume this includes research papers published in journals, seminar talks, courses taught (he's not required to teach, but of course that doesn't automatically mean he doesn't), etc.), salaries, perhaps as compared with other professors, effects of conferring of this title (have the the professors become more productive in research because they don't have any "formal duties" such as teaching, or less, because they're more secure than they were?), etc. Many more things can be said! Michael Hardy 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Fair enough, but the fact remains that none of that information is here yet. As of right now, this page is redundant with List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people. New pages are created to expand on a topic when the information in a broader article grows too large and unwieldy, not preemptively with the expectation or hope that expansion will occur later on. This article is nearly three years old; it's not like it's a young creation that hasn't yet been given a chance to bloom. I suspect that if the information you suggest including was already available from a reliable source, it would have been included by now; that it hasn't indicates to me that there aren't many or any sources available that comment on those aspects of this professorship. Consequently, I don't think that we should hang around with this article hoping that such sources will crop up. Kane5187 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge — although the Institute Professors themselves are no doubt notable, I find it hard to see why the title itself is worth an article. A mention in the article on the professors, of course, and a sentence in the list of faculty and/or the MIT article, seem sufficient. Plus, I would add a Category:MIT Institute Professors as a subcategory of Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. As a test of notability, a simple question: is there any article on the title per se (rather than one of the professors) from a source other than MIT? (Full disclosure: I am MIT faculty.) —Steven G. Johnson 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons listed above. Although, I think it makes sense to add a heading for Institute Professors at the List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people page (with the possibility of these people being listed in the separate category also). -- Superdosh 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. My understanding is that "Institute Professor" is short for "Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute Professor" such that every person who is one is notable yet all information on the title can fit in a subsection at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. WAS 4.250 03:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, MIT has been a vanguard in the management of academia staff, and this is of general interest. Besides, there are many articles which link to this page [21], we need a standalone article to describe this title. I hope the article can be expanded to describe how the Institute Professors are selected and what benefits they enjoy. --Vsion 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The large number of pages that link here actually do so because of Template:MITtemplate; very few pages actually link normally. Kane5187 11:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Close enough to notable.-Kmaguir1 06:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Institute Professorship is considered as a great honor at MIT and certainly an important concept for MIT academic life. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this was the MITwiki, then sure -- but this article should be notable within the realm of all knowledge, not just MIT's corner of the universe. It's an honor at MIT and an important concept for MIT, but I don't see how it's notable in the larger picture. Kane5187 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless you intend to delete the article on Academy Awards, since some of the winners were not all that notable. Gzuckier 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally not comparable, and the notability of the winners is not the issue here as explained above. The academy awards, Nobel prizes, and similar awards are widely known in and of themselves and have numerous sources about those awards in general (not just about specific award winners). —Steven G. Johnson 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, The people are, on the whole, noteable enough and the distinction is held in high regard both at MIT and beyond -- if only for its exclusivity within a top tier institution. This shouldn't go away but I wouldn't be upset with a decision to merge with another appropriate article either. --mako (talk•contribs) 17:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. What, are we running out of server space? If even a few people think this is a keep, that should prove that there is enough interest for this to be an article. If college a cappella groups get their own articles, then this seems fair. I can imagine somebody reading about so and so being an "Institute Professor" at MIT and it would be nice to look up. It would also be nice to be able to link to this article from the articles of such professors. Perhaps it should be extended a bit, but how could one object to its existence? Too encyclopedic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birge (talk • contribs) 13:05, August 28, 2006
    • Comment By nominating this for deletion, I am not suggesting that the topic itself is unimportant or unencyclopedic, or that mention of it should be excised from Wikipedia. I'm just saying that there isn't any information about it on its own page that isn't covered elsewhere (e.g. at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people). It's redundant, and keeping this page merely clutters up Wikipedia. If this article is deleted, none of its content will be deleted as it all is sufficiently covered at other pages. Kane5187 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's redundant in the sense you're pointing out, it doesn't have to stay that way. More information can be added that could be inappropriate for those other articles. If that were done, would you change your mind? Michael Hardy 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment As I pointed out above, this article is three years old and it has still yet to go beyond a three-sentence defintion. If such information existed from reliable sources, I'm pretty sure it would have been included here by now. We don't create articles with the vague hope that they will expand beyond a simple definition and list someday in the distant future. Information could be added, but until it is, this article's existence is redundant. When the definition/history/duties of the position get to be unwieldy over at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, that's when you branch off and create a separate article. Kane5187 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was surprised to see how many pages link to this one! Is there a policy or conventional norm according to which that should be taken into account in deciding whether to keep an article? Here' another data point: I googled "institute professor" (in quotes, so it's an exact match) and found about 268,000 hist, of which the Wikipedia page titled Institute Professor was the very first one! (Some of the others were things like "Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Professor Will Develop New ...", where the parsing would be "{Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute} professor). Michael Hardy 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. Template links. OK. Still, the google result is interesting. Michael Hardy 18:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's interesting enough for Wikipedia, in my opinion. Julius.kusuma 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the Wikipedia article titled Joseph Pellegrino University Professor? Michael Hardy 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After a quick glance, it should probably be merged into an appropriate article (e.g. if something analogous to Harvard University academic posts exists, and if there are numerous similar appointments to fill out that proposed page). But this AfD shouldn't rely on other examples. Kane5187 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, it appears this whole argument is moot, since somebody (I) was kind enough to add information, at long last, to the article. So, it's no longer redundent. We can all go home now. Birge 01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I appreciate your efforts, this does nothing to address to the concern of notability, provides no reason why we can't move your added material over to the introduction line at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, and doesn't seem to cite its sources. Kane5187 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commen Good god, man, what do you have against this article? Did an Institute Professor kill your uncle? ;-) I have no idea how to address notability. Not every article in an encyclopedia is as notable as others, but I think it's fair to assume that anybody who reads about an IP might be interesting in knowing what that is. Now, as for why we can't move over material on the details of IP: if you were interested in finding out what IP means, would you expect to find it in a List of MIT People? No, you wouldn't. You'd probably hope there were an article on IP. Heck, you might not even know that IP is an MIT thing. As for not citing sources, I did mention which MIT document the information is from in the text. I just didn't bother to find an online reference. I should do that. But do you've been saying all along the whole problem is redundency of information. That's been solved with what I think is useful information. Birge 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I don't have anything against this article, and I take exception to the idea you imply that I am just coming up with reasons to oppose its existence: while redundancy of information is important, the first sentence in my proposal deals with the issue of notability. In that regard, you seem to think that an abstract person who might "hope there were an article on IP" makes this article's subject notable. Please read WP:N: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." I think that the MIT community would definitely be considered a narrow group, and I can't imagine that the subject of an institute professor would be of importance to anyone who isn't an MIT student or faculty member. Besides, under Professor#North American, there is a quick list of these types of appointments, because they vary by institution and don't each deserve separate treatment. I support its deletion because it serves no purpose but to clutter up Wikipedia andto repeat information already available at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people and Professor, and because neither Wikipedia nor its users have anything to gain by keeping it. Kane5187 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well said. -- Superdosh 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The thing is, you do keep changing what you focus on. If somebody argues that it's notable, you say the big problem is that it's redundent. And when I point out that it's easy to fix the redundency, than all of a sudden your biggest problem is that it's not notable. Well, if something is worth putting in the MIT People list, than it's worth putting in the correct place. If you think having information about what an Institute Professor is is worth having SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia, than I think it's worth having as its own short article to make it easy to find. And it's interesting beyond the MIT community (though perhaps not for many people, but then again neither is Group Theory) for the same reason Harvard's presidential antics are of interest to people outside Harvard. I think there's a vast difference between the Morris Schmenkman professorship at the Southern Glouchester Vocational College and Community Reading Room and Institute Professor at MIT, because the latter comes up in other articles because of the stature of those involved. All such professors are worthy of their own articles, and those articles will probably mention their position as IPs. It would be nice to have a link to an explanation of what IP is and why it means something rather than a link to the MIT People page, don't you think? Birge 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I don't see how that's any nicer than a piped link like this one that goes directly to the definition and list of IPs at MIT. Basically, the difference is the title of the page, and I have much fewer notability qualms about List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people. Again, I point you back to the definition of notability. You say that this article can "interesting beyond the MIT community," which is absolutely true, but WP:N involves information that is known or should be known beyond a small community; very different from being found interesting by others. I highly doubt that the title of Institute Professor is well-known beyond MIT, and I would be surprised if that title has any importance or impact beyond the school, either (being careful to distinguish between the professors who hold the title and the title itself; I know that a professor having such a title might have impact). I think that this information is worth keeping "somewhere" on Wikipedia because it is important within the context of MIT professors and MIT itself, and so would be perfectly acceptable as a section in such an article.
              Regarding focus: of course I have changed subject based on what people have cited when objecting to the deletion. That's called responding to their specific ideas and making direct counterarguments, not trying to weasel out of the argument. I defy you to show me an example of my saying that any one issue with this article is "the big problem" as you claim. If someone votes "Keep" because they find it notable, then I remind them that that isn't the only problem I noticed and I ask them to address the other ones. You did a good job in adding more information to reduce redundancy, but I also ask you about eliminating notability problems. I'm waiting for a good solution that solves all the problems I brought up, and when one appears in a satisfactory fashion, I will change my vote to Speedy Keep and withdraw the nomination. If any of the problems remain unsolved, then this article qualifies for deletion. Kane5187 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Ok, looking at the notability page I think I'm starting to be swayed, especially by the fact that there are really no articles elsewhere on institute professorship that aren't directly from MIT, which makes an NPOV difficult. So, while personally I think it's a good article to have, I do agree that it's a close call with regard to some of the criteria for notability provided my Wikipedia (which are often contradictory, I should point out). I think you're wrong about it being of no importance, but I do agree there isn't enough outside information on it. So, I guess my problem is with Wikipedia, which seems content to always being behind the ball on any subject given that they will only consider something notable if a bunch of other sources already cover it, as well. But given my current ambivalence about this, I'll switch my vote to merge. Is it considered fair to delete one's own vote? Birge 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment People change their votes all the time. Generally, they don't just delete it, they strike it out (putting <s> and </s> around it) so that the record of voting is kept (see how Steven G. Johnson changed from Delete to Merge above). Kane5187 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment MIT is not a "narrow interest group" even if MIT is narrow (in the sense of having only 10,000 students and fewer faculty). An "interest group" can consist of all persons interested in a particular topic. But many more people would be interested in this topic than just the members of this "narrow" group. Michael Hardy 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Please see my response to Birge above on notability; it does not deal with people "interested" in something, it deals with whether people know or should know about the subject because of its importance. Kane5187 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're splitting hairs. When I say someone is "interested" in something, I mean the same thing as if I'd said it is important to them and they should know about it. Michael Hardy 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment I am not splitting hairs, I am pointing out an important distinction that you keep missing. This does not deal with whether something is important to somebody, it deals with whether it is objectively important in general and consequently should be known by people in general. I recommend you read WP:N carefully before returning to this discussion. Kane5187 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Add two more sourced paragraphs and I think its a keep. By the way, altho sources that are on the web are more useful, sources are still sources even if they are dusty books on a shelf. They only must be widely available to the public to count as a source, so a handout not even at an MIT library doesn't count and a source only found in Massechusetts (eg at an MIT library) is questionable. WAS 4.250 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dylan wrote "I can't imagine that the subject of an institute professor would be of importance to anyone who isn't an MIT student or faculty member." That's just silly. Dylan's lack of ability to imagine things is of no interest or relevance to this discussion. There are perfectly obvious reasons why persons not affiliated with MIT would have use for this information. Michael Hardy 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Saying "I imagine" is obviously a rhetorical device, and you are again missing the point. People could certainly "have use for" the details of my own life: friends, family, employers, coworkers, and classmates, to name a few. But the reason why I have a Facebook account instead of a Wikipedia biography is because I'm not a notable individual in the larger world. This has nothing to do with anybody finding information about title of Institute Professor interesting or enlightening or intriguing or useful. It has to do with whether the title is important or relevant to the average reader. That the only sources provided are MIT publications suggests to me that this is certainly an important subject to people at MIT, but not to anyone else. Kane5187 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The average reader? Why the average reader? Why not the reader interested in academia or in MIT? Most of the math articles are probably not of interest to the average reader. Should we delete them all? Michael Hardy 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I was using the phrase "the average reader" to try to make it simpler to understand, but in retrospect it was a rather misleading term. The idea is that the subject needs to be important in general, to the world as a whole. Mathematics articles like Group theory are important in general because a variety of mathematicians have studied it, there are numerous and diverse academic papers and books on it, and because it's generally acknowledged by the scientific community to be a significant area of study. Other mathematics articles that might not bear the same widespread acknowledgement might still be notable because they are considered a groundbreaking if burgeoning area of research. You keep coming back to this criterion of the subject being "of interest to" somebody. No matter how interesting the title of Institute Professor or, or how much it is of interest to some people, I still have not seen anyone in the AfD put forth a good reason why or how it has been considered to be notable beyond Cambridge. If it were, I would expect non-MIT sources to have commented on it, or at least an MIT source to do so beyond a cursory definition (none of the provided external links do more than that). Kane5187 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Beyond Cambridge" there are people interested in the geography of academia. Let's say a clerical assistant to the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Somewhere is writing to Professor X at MIT to invite him to speak at the commencement. Might it not be useful for the assistant to know whom he's writing to and understand what Professor X's title of "Institute Professor" means? Then a journalist writing about Professor X's forthcoming appearance as the speaker would find it useful too. Do you think no one at other institutions ever communicates with anyone at MIT? Michael Hardy 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I thought my ability to imagine "let's say" and "might it...be" hypotheticals was of no relevance to this AfD. You are suggesting times when it would be useful to know what an Institute Professor is. I am challenging you to give reasons why this title is important outside of MIT, why this title has an enduring impact beyond MIT. Kane5187 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I said you inability to imagine such things is of no interest (you had asserted that you lack any such ability). I gave some reasons for importance to people outside of MIT. Why do you then assert that I did not? Michael Hardy 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I say that because you gave scenarios when it would useful to know what an IP is, not why the title is important. If friend that I went to high school with might want to contact me, knowing my address would be useful, but not make my address important in the real world. I don't know why you cannot understand that distinction; I really have no way of distilling the explanation any further. Important is different from useful. We are looking for an article that is important in the world in general, not just useful to anyone. FAQ lists, instruction manuals, and travel guides are all useful, but they are prohibited from Wikipedia. Just because someone, somewhere might have use for this information does make it a Keep. Kane5187 11:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand very well. You're the one who's failing to understand. Your friend's phone number is useful to you but not to the public. Usefulness to the public entails "importance" and "notability" in the present sense. This information is useful, not just to some specific person that we can now identify, but to many who may some day be situated as in my examples or otherwise will be navigating their way through academia. Michael Hardy 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentScenario1: somebody searching Wikipedia: "Damn! They included Institute Professor! I hate Wikipedia"
    Scenario2: somebody searching Wikipedia: "Thank God! They deleted Institute Professor! This is a lot better now."
    Gzuckier 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia's notability policy is not based on imagining future users' reactions to AfDs. I agree that both of your provided scenarios are rather unlikely, but pleasing or displeasing users is not what we are here to do. Kane5187 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is no official notability policy! Quit dishonestly implying there is. In fact, this whole issue of notability is up for debate, so it's not fair for you to invoke some sort of "policy" which doesn't exist while dismissing others' reasons as not relevent. In the end, we should be bound by our good judgement, given that there is no hard and fast rule for notability, nor is it an official policy. Birge 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That's true, but the concept of notability has very widespread acceptance among editors and while not considered "official" by the Foundation, is a guideline accepted by most. I didn't mean to imply that we were bound by a holy, official rule, but virtually every Wikipedia editor recognizes it is an important guideline for editing. The concept of notability appears multiple times in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (which is official policy) and is generally considered an extension of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." No one would hestitate to delete a well-written, NPOV, cited article about the fire hydrant in front of my house because it isn't official policy to do so.
          I apologize if my arguments mislead you in that direction; I honestly didn't mean to do so. Hopefully the fact that I linked WP:N multiple times (and encouraged people to read it) might suggest that I wasn't attempting to conceal the actual classification of the concept. Kane5187 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The problem is, the concept of notability may have widespread acceptance, but the definition does not, nor is it at all accepted as applied towards deciding to keep an article versus merge it. I accept that you weren't trying to decieve people, but it certainly appeared that you were when the title of your link to the notability essay was "notability policy" when it's not policy. In fact, that same page lists both sides of the debate, and draws no final conclusions. In the end, I'm not sure what the problem is. You argue that it's not notable enough for it's own article, but is notable enough to have somewhere in Wikipedia. You say that it will clutter wikipedia, but if the information is going to be in wikipedia regardless, isn't it less cluttered if it's organized into its own article, where people are free to ignore it and will never come upon it unless they follow a link or search for it? To me, it seems that wikipedia is best served by dividing things into more, rather than fewer, articles, because that keeps information better organized and less overwhelming. There's no reason we should divide Wikipedia like a paper encyclopedia, since search and linking is instantaneous. Birge 18:19, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadian Independence Party[edit]

Group is non-existant (Google search only has results from two web sites), basic idea already covered in article Cascadia. El Cid 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it looks like a big hoax. Those two websites are messageboards, which hurts the credibility even more. TJ Spyke 01:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_27&oldid=1116878539"