Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The result was Keep. Prodego ^talk 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model and marque oddities[edit]

The previous AfD has ended with no consensus because many users and the closer focused on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as reasons for deletion, which one can argue can be alleviated by extensive editing, splitting and renaming. However, one important and valid reason for deletion was lost along the way - WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even split and renamed, the contest of this page would still present a collection of unencyclopedic trivia. WP should not and does not (hopefully) contain lists such as List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name.

Please vote delete if you agree with this very argument or vote keep if you can substantiate that this article does not violate this policy. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the related (nomen omen) List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates was deleted for similar reasons. NOT deleting this article now would be nothing short of a case of WikiSchizophrenia.
I also hope some of the editors of those articles managed to create a copy within their user pages, or perhaps will dig one out of the Internet Archives, so that it won't be lost. Those are really fun and it would be a pity of so much work just went up in fumes. They only don't belong in Wikipedia, but perhaps in some less encyclopedic and more relaxed, car- or trivia-oriented Wiki. Bravada, talk - 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific and trivial information to be of interest, listcruft. JIP | Talk 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are fairly specific grounds for inclusion in the "list". Perhaps it should be moved to Automobile model and marque oddities, since there is in fact more discussion here than just a "list", and calling anything a "list" anymore seems to be waving a red flag in front of the bull. Lists must hide, it seems. Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - still, how is this information encyclopedic? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article seems a bit lacking in focus and direction - it's not clear what actually constitutes an 'oddity' - mostly it reads just like some guy rambling on about things that he finds curious or interesting. I doubt that many people would be seeking this information - so it's mostly just a big waste of time for the editor(s). On the other hand, I'm not a 'deletionist' and I don't think this page is actually doing any harm beyond the $0.01 worth of disk space it consumes. It's not misleading anyone with false information (as far as I can tell) - so...meh...keep it I guess. (NOTE: In the interests of openness, I should note that I was surprised to discover that I'd actually contributed to the article - but that was only to correct Mini to MINI). 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Tentative Keep and relist on Deletion review, too soon after original closure. Morgan Wick 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ok, and when will it be OK to submit it for normal deletion again? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some cleanup of terms like "interesting" (an opinion that belongs in a magazine column rather than an encyclopedia article) but the basic information is valuable (and interesting). Fg2 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so perhaps I'll just go and start this List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name. Also, how about List of motor cars whose front track exceeds their height? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - which brings us back to the age-old m:Deletionism versus m:Inclusionism debate. I'm an unabashed inclusionist and I don't have a problem with these ultra-obscure lists - even the two ridiculous examples you mention here. They are pointless - probably nobody will ever read them - but the cost in terms of disk space consumed by all of these ridiculous lists put together is negligable compared to even a single unnecessary 2000x2000 resolution picture of a Pokemon or something. The only kinds of lists I object to are the ones that are downright misleading or which will turn into untruths if not actively maintained (which they won't be). So I would delete a hypothetical List of the most popular candybars because in six months tastes will change and the list will be wrong. But List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name may be incomplete - but so long as it has the template at the top that warns that the list is incomplete - then we aren't misleading anyone. The red flag for me is lists with superlatives in the title "The most XXX" or "The worst XXX" - those are unmaintainable and must die. So what is the benefit to keeping these pointless articles? Well, it prevents flamefests between people who wish to delete them and the people who (often stupidly) created them. That's a good thing for harmony and peace in the Wikisphere. But this is a deep and ancient debate and we aren't going to resolve it here. The fate of these articles randomly depends on the ratio of inclusionists to deletionists who happen to sign the AfD. SteveBaker 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm also an inclusionist, and am unhappy that this was again proposed so soon after a no-concensus was reached. Shall we keep voting until folks who want to keep it fail to notice and respond? --SFoskett 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not my intention as nominator. The last nomination was closed with no consensus because the discussion sprawled over too many unrelated issues, and some reasons for deletion mentioned were not applicable or sufficient. Yet one important reason prevails and it has been omitted by most disputants and the closer, so I wanted it to be discussed specifically - as explained in the lead section. Unfortunately, only one of the persons participating in the current discussion related to it in their comments. Bravada, talk - 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK, I'll take on the "indiscriminate list of trivia" item. That entry lists certain specific things that should not be included. Among these are Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Travel guides, Memorials, Instruction manuals, Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts, and Plot summaries. This is none of these. It is an article about odd marques and makes of automobiles, where "odd" specifically means "unusual" (per wiktionary). These are all unusual. As for whether it belongs here, I feel it does. It was created and edited by many people, contains much interesting information, and is no less encyclopedic than most other lists (see List of recent automobile models by type for a particularly ridiculous list). At least it's somewhat interesting, factual, and fairly complete... However, I have another suggestion: Perhaps this should be merged with the marque article, since these seem in general to support that topic. --SFoskett 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it could be a very good solution! I think the marque article could explain how marques and model names are used and give examples of some peculiarities, so that some of them listed here could be salvaged. Do you think you could do that? Bravada, talk - 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if one of the contributors wants to take responsibility for moving it off Wikipedia, then delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Interesting but not encyclopedic. Not much of the content should be merged into articles about individual vehicles or manufacturers, and the topic does not belong here at all, but virtually all of it would be good for some automotive reference whose purpose and standards differ from Wikipedia's. Barno 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The "inclusionism vs. deletionism" debate is not helpful in resolving this AfD; people should leave that noise on policy-debate pages and discuss the facts of this topic and how they fit policies. "Let the troublemakers have their way to avoid fights" is neither WP policy nor a way to produce a better encyclopedia; this instead reduces WP's credibility. Barno 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is valid to be on Wikipedia. For God's sake look at it, so much work has gone into it. It is wholly verifiable and sourceable. If there are issues with part of it, change it, don't delete it.
Split into multiple articles. --Gray Porpoise 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 patent nonsense, it's called wikiality, not wikireality! - Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikireality[edit]

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, and just because it was invented by Stephen Colbert on cable television doesn't automatically mean its notable. My original prod was removed by page creator. hateless 00:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by having a triple-sized herd of elephants stomp on it. NawlinWiki 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Non-encylopedic. Protologism with aim of abuse of Wikipedia but no evidence of wide usage Bwithh 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it gets news stories written about it like Truthiness did, which doesn't seem too likely. Recury 00:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never even heard the term used before Konman72 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plus, I watched the video, it's not even called "Wikireality", it's called something else. Kalani ^[talk] 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NEO. SynergeticMaggot 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NEO Betacommand 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And for the record, it was "Wikiality" - not "Wikireality". Czj 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colbert didn't even use it: the word was "Wikiality" which already has a redirect in place to The Colbert Report. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a non-notable protologism and a failed attempt at Colbertcruft. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the obvious VoiceOfReason 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COLBERT (I might just start it)...also a WP:NEO alphaChimp ^laudare 04:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete That wasn't even the word... Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the outcome of this deletion is obvious, the closing admin may want to consider salting the article, as Colbert Report-related articles like this are likely to recieve a lot of traffic and probably be recreated. In any case, at least watching this deleted article by a few wikipedians is probably in order. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hood[edit]

Hoax article by creator of now-deleted hoax article Patrick Fitch, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Fitch; neither of the claimed TV shows has an entry on IMDB. NawlinWiki 00:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching on "Brian Hood Most Likely" brings up no relevant hits. The IMDB link is for a different Brian Hood. --Brianyoumans 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Betacommand 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not notable? that is giving it too much credit... hoax. delete Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this sounded familiar, and sure enough....~~Speedy~~ Delete per nom and (if applicable) as repost of deleted content. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It may be a repost of deleted content, but the repost of deleted content CSD criteria only applies for articles deleted through XfD processes. Even still, he's not notable. alphaChimp ^laudare 07:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'd overlooked that. Fixing my vote to reflect this. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. rootology (T) 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. It was created at the same time as Patrick Fitch which was speedy deleted and both articles were linked from Dean Gaffney here. The image appears to be two random guys who met Dean Gaffney who decided to call themselves his co-stars just so the image would stay on the article, and then they created fake articles about themselves. This is part of ongoing vandalism to the Dean Gaffney article. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --HResearcher 11:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just leave it its funny! This is comedy gold. 'Brian Hood' is a well known firgure. I personally can vouch for that. It is very funny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totanpole (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:16 (UTC)
Delete obvious hoax — NM Chico24 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as a non-notable hoax article. Yamaguchi先生 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Scott3 15:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Johnathan Wendel. Morgan Wick 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fata1ity[edit]

drivel Selmo 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to be bold and make into a redirect to our existing article, which should have existed already. Morgan Wick 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Morgan Wick. NCurse _work 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as unverifiable, original research, neologism. Turnstep 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colberrorism[edit]

Stephen Colbert protologism; author removed speedy tag w/o explanation. Is anyone else sick of Colbert? I sure am. NawlinWiki 00:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism, revelevant only to Wikipedia—the silliest kind of self-reference. I would delete on the spot as clearly unsuitable for the encyclopedia, except that (depressingly) it doesn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion. But I'm tempted, believe me. I would like to note, however, that I'm not sick of Mr. Colbert in the slightest; he has a wonderful show. ;) -- SCZenz 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily, as an article with this title was deleted before. Why wasn't this prod'd? Morgan Wick 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered speedying, but the original speedy (as "patent nonsense") wasn't really valid so the repost under G4 wouldn't have been either. As for prodding, the author (or another person whose interest in humor outweighs their comittment to Wikipedia) would almost certainly have removed it quickly. -- SCZenz 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since the creator quickly protested the AFD, it's pretty clear in hindsight the prod would have failed. hateless 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm not sick of Colbert, but I am sick of vandals adding Colbert-related nonsense. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This is a term referring to Colbert-inspired vandalism on Wikipedia. It is referring to something that actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundra X (talk • contribs)
Delete. I'm a fan of Colbert. But just like Jesus, whom I'm also a fan of, their zealots are a bit of a pain. hateless 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --physicq210 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn protologism, no google hits, no nothing. Can this be speedied per WP:SNOW? --Zoz (t) 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme speedy delete, attempt to sidestep the Colbert vandalism by creating an article on it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and trample with three times thirty elephants. Antandrus (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable neologism, sillinest informations in encyclopedia. Colbert vandalism by creating article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. –RHolton ≡– 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I saw this term get coined, it was just a joke. Can't believe someone actually made an article out of this. Konman72 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Colbert coined "Wikiality". This is just completely made up. Morgan Wick 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously a neologism. Kalani ^[talk] 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wouldnt this be a speedy - vanity?SynergeticMaggot 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity is a Deadly Sin, not a criterion for speedy deletion. You may be thinking of CSD A7, which deals with persons or groups with "no assertion of notability," and is often applicable for vanity articles. -- SCZenz 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more colbert attack junk Betacommand 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Selmo 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible per WP:SNOW — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELF CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and protect from re-creation as a self-referential neologism. I saw this on ANI and was like, "I sure hope no one makes an article on this", and sure enough... --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protect and delete: This is obvious nonsense. Please protect since this article has been deleted twice before. --Hetar 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I've always enjoyed jumping on bandwagons VoiceOfReason 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's the voice of reason! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please. Non-notable neologism. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and protect from re-creation. -/- Warren 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Why has this not been deleted yet? Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Prodego ^talk 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus drop[edit]

Importance in question. Extremely short article about store-brand soda flavor. Might deserve a brief mention on the main Kroger article, but scope is too limited for a full article all its own. — NM Chico24 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Um.... yeah as per nom. Bwithh 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not only does it supposedly taste like Mountain Dew, they also copied Mountain Dew's design! Kalani ^[talk] 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generic drink. ::takes a sip of citrus drop:: SynergeticMaggot 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable Betacommand 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite my like of both Citrus Drop and Drop Red (yum!). Generic soft drink brands are not notable individually, though perhaps there's a place for a reference to the Drop on the Mountain Dew article in a "generic versions" section, or in the Kroger article as part of a discussion on its generic brands. --FreelanceWizard 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable beverage. And for the record, it does taste like Mountain Dew, but real Mountain Dew is better. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kroger. Or just delete. VoiceOfReason 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it tastes like Mt. Dew then it deserves to be deleted anyways :-) Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No assertion of notability per above. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kroger; the drink is pretty well-known in parts of the American south. But a separate article? Certainly not. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, and redirect to Kroger. rootology (T) 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to User:Bipolarzebra. --HResearcher 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but don't mind delete either—per above. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:19 (UTC)
Merge and Delete into Kroger per above. Attic Owl 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kroger or delete. JIP | Talk 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Czj 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Kroger article or alternately create a List of generic Kroger brands type page and mention it there. RFerreira 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Gray Porpoise 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZeldereX Online[edit]

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE (as per User:Peephole). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, looks like a game guide. WP:NOT. SynergeticMaggot 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Betacommand 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peephole 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per issues with WP:NN, NOT, WEB, and SOFTWARE. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 07:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. rootology (T) 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webgamecruft --HResearcher 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom, is too much of a walkthrough than an encyclopedia article. Draicone ^(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:21 (UTC)
Keep Let it stay, you have so many other articles on stuff like this game that are 10x worse. Get rid of those first.--71.52.116.76 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zelderex is cool. Wiki is cool. So let it stay. Ζχ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.86.252 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - Paulus89 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Paul Robinson[edit]

Did some researching and can't turn up any evidence of notability. The article's subject seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Crystallina 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried several different searches in google. Nothing much regarding this artist or ensemble. Here were my results: [1], [2], [3] — NM Chico24 01:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has, according to his site, been around the world a bit to play, I don't think that counts as a pass on WP:MUSIC. When one includes NMChico24's evidence, this fellow is non-notable. Furthermore, "Atlas Ensemble" gets no matches in amazon.com music, so I don't think his group is notable either. --FreelanceWizard 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC InvictaHOG 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — WP:NN & spam advertising Betacommand 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable. biggest claim to fame is having played at the Montreux Jazz festival in July 2004 per his website. His role cannot be substantiated.Ohconfucius 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and above, nn. rootology (T) 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:20 (UTC)
Speedy Delete — CSD A7, fails to assert the notability of the subject. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Once again, people: Please just redirect these things, rather than wasting time with AFD.--SB | T 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional basketball[edit]

Dictionary definition. All of the information here is contained in other articles, and I don't see how this could be expanded much to make it worthy of existing on its own. fuzzy510 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary.--Jusjih 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as per Jusjih. EVula 02:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. Redirect to basketball if Wiktionary won't take it. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki — per above Betacommand 05:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if deleted, this should be redirected to basketball, obviously. — sjorford ++ 07:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki And also, please redirect to bastketball. rootology (T) 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Professional basketball" is not an idiom. It is a straightforward combination of the two words "professional" and "basketball". This does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. The transwiki system is not a means for avoiding dealing with problem articles. Uncle G 10:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. I don't think a redirect is needed, a search for "professional basketball" will also reveal "basketball". --HResearcher 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to basketball. You could probably expand with discussions of the various non-US professional leagues, but it's all really covered in other articles and summarized in basketball. Kuru ^talk 13:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary --Shaymus22 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basketball, reasonable search term. Neutral as to whether it should be transwikied or not. JYolkowski // talk 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basketball. As per above. Morgan Wick 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to basketball per JYolk (or perhaps to List of basketball leagues). Joe 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have transwikied the whole edit history to Wiktionary. I suggest redirecting to basketball next.--Jusjih 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you might want to correct the claim that professional sport is for profit there. NCAA are for profit too, they just don't pay their players. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVC revolution[edit]

Non-notable youth basketball team. 64 Ghits, only 9 of them unique, and they all seem to refer to a soccer team, not a basketball team, technically meaning that there's nothing to show that this team exists at all. fuzzy510 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group appears non-notable and seems to fail WP:ORG. Really, this could fall under CSD A7 given that there's no assertion of notability in the article. --FreelanceWizard 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom InvictaHOG 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — db-group Betacommand 05:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it As above... not worth an AfD. rootology (T) 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hey, why not have an article on every single little league / high school / grade school / junior league / etc team in the world? Then we can make sure we have an article about every single person in the world too! --HResearcher 11:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Erechtheus 14:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable group. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable group - Paulus89 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio and blatant spam. JIP | Talk 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing reel repair[edit]

Delete as various things, including a how-to guide as well as the copyvio in the nomination. BigHaz 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that the subject matter is bad for a page, however, and would support an actual article on the inner workings and the descriptions of things that go wrong and how people fix them. InvictaHOG 04:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete only for copyvio ... I think it would be a cool article to have... Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — admitted copyvio " Taken from <http://www.mikesreelrepair.com>" Betacommand 05:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio. -- Gogo Dodo 05:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Based on the copyvio. rootology (T) 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there an article on Flat Tire Repair? or Cleaning your toiletbowl? How about Washing your windows? This is NOT encyclopedic content. copyvio has nothing to do with it, since copyvio can be corrected with copyediting. --HResearcher 12:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls TV series[edit]

The article is entirely unreferenced, abysmally written, and concerns a non-notable television series that was apparently never released. John254 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. VoiceOfReason 02:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per VoiceOfReason. EVula 02:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Simply not an encyclopedia article. Also, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Unverifiable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Seriously, what is up with all these canceled/unproduced Disney Channel spinoffs getting articles as of late? --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it becomes real someday, it can be re-created. -/- Warren 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Konman72 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such a series is announced. This looks like something that was split off from a talk page. 23skidoo 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until show actually happens. -- Gogo Dodo 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOT Betacommand 05:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth keeping. rootology (T) 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I think this is vandalism. --HResearcher 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:22 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more of a request for information than an article anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. --TheM62Manchester 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Pathlessdesert 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. - Paulus89 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete If you look this info up on MTV.com you can find all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.130.72 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Do you mind linking to that article, then? All I see on MTV.com is articles about the Cheetah Girls movies, with nothing indicating a TV show is in production. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will link that right now. :)

OK its there now :) :)

Delete. Sorry, that's one of the actors saying that the TV series is delayed. No confirmation from MTV.com or ABC/Disney that the project wasn't cancelled. Puts it a little ahead of the curve, but still in the nature of round, crystalline objects. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nessesidy[edit]

Apparently this comic doesn't even exist? Nothing on Google for 'Nessesidy Sabrina'. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By the article's creator this comic doesn't exist anywhere on the web. "No profit is made from Nessesidy and it is not displayed anywhere else therefor this is not a promotion nor a webcomic." In fact, it seems like this is original comicbookery wherein the article's creator is using Wikipedia as something akin to a free web host. It's non-notable, original research (uh, sort of), and unverifiable. --FreelanceWizard 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the Google test no matter how I search. However, any way you cut it, I must give strong credit to the creators of this article -- this is very elaborate for being fake... kind of humorous as well. Seems like they wanted to see if they could sneak something totally random (but well-written) by. BJAODN? Czj 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really funny enough for BJAODN. Unverifiable and nonexistent. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Erechtheus 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NFT Betacommand 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had earlier prodded it, but in retrospect a db-nocontext was provided for, since the first section was not on the article at that time. (No longer, though.) Same reasons as everyone else. Morgan Wick 06:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. -- Dragonfiend 06:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:NFT Ohconfucius 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even exist! Obviously nn. rootology (T) 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Do we get to keep the images? --HResearcher 12:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable (fake) webcomic, vanity article. JIP | Talk 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Paulus89 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this could probably qualify as a speedy delete as a vanity page. --chemica 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, the subject does not appear to exist. Yamaguchi先生 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 09:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damnyouall.net[edit]

De-prodded by anon with the compelling justification "Reason: up yours." Prod concern was "Non-notable web community, fails WP:WEB." Was speedied a few times back in December, it never got past "Family Guy based theme site. More info on the way," so I don't think it counts as a repost, unfortunately. -- Vary | Talk 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the "up yours" comment by an anon user. Ryūlóng 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ryūlóng. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the fact that the prod contest comment is quite uncivil and arguably demonstrates bad faith, this site has an Alexa rank of 599,525. There's also no citations provided in the article to suggest that it meets any of the other WP:WEB criteria. The forum appears non-notable. --FreelanceWizard 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. This is a compelling case for permitting re-prodding when there's no reason given for de-prodding something.--Kchase T 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Erechtheus 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alexa rank of 599,925. My mother's GeoCities page ranks higher than that. VoiceOfReason 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and lol VOR Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — this page meets no guidelines for notability Betacommand 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per "up yours" rootology (T) 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of civility is not a valid reason for deletion. --HResearcher 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. However, lack of civility is evidence that the uncivil one has nothing better to say. That the contributor explained his deprodding with an epithet strongly suggests that he has no good reason for keeping the article. VoiceOfReason 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. websitecruft. --HResearcher 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per nom. It's chuff like this that gives wikipedia a bad name. --Charlesknight 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as webforum vanity and attack page. JIP | Talk 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN forum. Czj 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB, and does not help that the Member section of the article is down right ~~distrubing~~ disturbing.-- danntm ^T _C 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed spelling.-- danntm ^T _C 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. - Paulus89 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, recreation of page which has been deleted four times previously, by three different admins (I was one of them). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Hall[edit]

This one station college radio show that is only a few months old is not sufficiently notable. Erechtheus 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; no sources.--Kchase T 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only got a couple of google hits. InvictaHOG 04:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; could be mentioned on the radio station's main article. -/- Warren 04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NFT Betacommand 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely nn. rootology (T) 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable radio show. --TheM62Manchester 11:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete collegeradiocruft --HResearcher 12:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Paulus89 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webee Boys[edit]

The article is entirely unreferenced, abysmally written, and concerns an apparently non-notable band. John254 02:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if an "Internet hit" could be backed up, it isn't a WP:MUSIC criteria. Erechtheus 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another band with a myspace page. They claim to be touring Antartica, so as soon as someone finds sources, I'll change my vote to keep. Good luck with that.--Kchase T 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and likely hoax. If the touring of Antarctica and puerile text doesn't mark it as such, I searched at Last.fm and found no mention.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable band. -- Gogo Dodo 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since they make a strange assertion to notability, this can't be speedied. It could have been prodded. For next time...--Kchase T 05:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — db-band Betacommand 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom band not notable, and without track record. article unreferenced. but it appears there may be grounds for mergeto Ricky Ullman, one of the band members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs)
- From Ricky Ullman: "The band started as a joke but due to their popularity, it became a reality." This joke-turned-real band is reasonably covered in the other article. Oppose merge.--Kchase T 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like vandalism to me. --HResearcher 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is considered "good form" to ~~strike out~~ your old comments when you change your mind, instead of overwriting them entirely. Morgan Wick 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 63 G-hits for "Webee Boys". Kchase02, that comment on Ricky Ullman was added by the person who ultimately created the article, and is therefore dubious. If it is legit, I support a merge, as there appears to be no other legit claim to notability. Morgan Wick 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was confusing. I meant oppose merge and delete (which I still mean). Since the google results for this are so underwhelming, I also removed the reference from the article. Thanks for catching this apparent hoax.--Kchase T 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Dwyer[edit]

Blatant copyvio[4] and non-notable. I would have used the speedy delete tag, but one of the requirements (it seems) is that it was made in the past 48 hours... maybe I'm just confused, but here's the AfD. EVula 02:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (explained below) ~~Keep~~ conditioned on a few things. First, he's notable b/c he composed music played by bands that toured, so he gets in through the back door for composers in WP:MUSIC. Second, I've emailed the webmaster of the source site to try to get permission. Failing that, I will hopefully rewrite it tomorrow night. If neither happens, we will have to delete. Thanks for taking this to AfD where it can get more attention.--Kchase T 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio unless completely rewritten. You are correct that this is not speedy-able but, for future reference, the normal process is to revert to a prior non-infringing version, and if not possible, such as here, to blank the content, add the tag {{copyvio}} ({{copyvio|url=insert URL}}--~~~~), and list the article at today's WP:CP listing.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — if and only if it is rewritten Betacommand 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fuhghettaboutit. It's blatant copyvio (even admittedly!) as far back as its first version. Honestly, I'd actually suggest withdrawing the nomination and following the standard copyright problems procedure. ~~If the article's rewritten, though, he seems to pass WP:MUSIC and so the article should be kept.~~ Based on Kchase's research, I don't think he passes WP:MUSIC, so this would be a delete for non-notable anyway. --FreelanceWizard 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Kchase. If it isn't COMPLETELY copyedited by the close of this afd, blank the article to a stub with just the intro line one to say who he is. I already copyedited that line. Contributors can build the article later. --HResearcher 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment take a look at the article now that I have copyedited it (The rest that still needs copyediting is on the talk page). --HResearcher 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ is he really notable enough to warrant an article? --HResearcher 13:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought so, but I misread the source. He composed music not as an individual, but as a member of two ensembles (what role he had in those is unknown). The music was then performed in a bunch of places, not performed by a band that toured in all those places (so we have no idea if the bands are notable).--Kchase T 22:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how subject gets through WP:MUSIC, through the back door or otherwise.--Pathlessdesert 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, at least not yet. --HResearcher 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HResearcher -- Dubc0724 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Gals! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mami honda[edit]

There is no sufficient claim of notability in this article. While characters may be notable enough to merit an article, the only clear claim here is that this is a character. It isn't even clear in what she is a character. It does not appear that any reason is likely to arrive -- the article has been listed for cleanup since April. Erechtheus 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gals! where this character is already listed.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fuhghettaboutit alphaChimp ^laudare 04:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — ((db-nocontext}} Betacommand 05:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Per Fuhgettaboutit, it is too specific to warrant an article. Maybe merge? Draicone ^(talk) 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Gals is a worthy manga, Mami a significant character. Not Mami's fault she was orphaned! Bustter 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gals! as per above--Svartalf 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas[edit]

The article is entirely unreferenced, and is comprised entirely of a plot summary of a non-notable episode of an implicitly referenced television show whose existence has not been established. John254 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the show can be demonstrated to exist and be notable, in which case this article should be merged into it at present. BigHaz 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no context. Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete from a vandal Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the user who created it, the vandalism warnings are only related to removal of the AfD tag from this particular article, rather than anything more system-wide. Not that it excuses removing the tag three times or so, just that it puts a slightly different spin on the events. BigHaz 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as per BigHaz Betacommand 05:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense or no context, especially with creator's removal of AfD notice. Morgan Wick 01:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We Wikipedians can create articles on whatever we want; this article just needs some cleanup, that's all. And the show does exist. Some of the episodes are on YouTube. --Plainnym 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the general practice to have an article on the show before an article on the individual episodes? BigHaz 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is linked from Super_Mario_Bros._television_series. This appears to be an episode of Captain N and the Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. I watched that show when I was a child so I know it exists. Wikipedia already has several articles on television articles, so it appears that a television episode is a notable topic for wikipedia. There has already been some debate about the notability of television episodes at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes. That page states: "First, create an article on the television show. Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show. Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles." If the article is too short, it might be a good idea to merge all the episodes of a season into one article. Also, one episode of this show consisted of a 15 minute "mini-episode" of Super Mario Bros., 30 minutes of Captain N, then another 15 minutes of Mario Bros. Thus, I think that if each episode has its own article, it might be better for the two "mini-episodes" that were aired as part of a bigger episode to share an article. In regard to the article needing references: shouldn't the episode itself count as a reference? Q0 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT for plot summaries. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mjolnir Battle Tactics[edit]

This is a pure vanity article. It contains information about a closed community that is of no use to anyone else. This is also simply a continuation of a petty "war" MBT have with another group in the closed community, which exists purely to gain the most members, and as such is nothing more than vain advertising. (apologies for multiple edits, i'm new) Elmicker 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish for this article to be deleted. It is no more than ads. --Hotshotesquire 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the group in question has a history of similar behavior on bungie.net as well. As a moderator of Bungie.net, I do not wish to see a reputation built against Bungie.net for this group's actions. The article so far violates the NPOV rule, the No Original Research rule, and the No Advertisment rule. GameJunkieJim 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity advertisement for a recently-created Halo straegy community. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity Konman72 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as per above Betacommand 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do I absolutely have to say as per above? Wait, nevermind. I just did. This sucks. --65.31.150.139 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of a lack of notability. Sijo Ripa 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a pure advertisement. firepenguinz 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HI FIREPENQUINZ!!!! And to be on topic, I agree with what he said. --65.31.150.139 06:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM... that enough? --Svartalf 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Gosgood 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kring's Law[edit]

Supposedly "a mainstay of Internet culture". Google tells us it has been used 21 times in only one forum, lavag.org. Fails WP:NEO. -- Fan-1967 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. When it becomes as notable as Godwin's Law, it's a valid inclusion. BigHaz 03:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VoiceOfReason 03:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This should be filed under WP:NFT.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — 8 hits by google appears to be user spam about NN topic Betacommand 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN. --Big top 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Law passed to hereby delete this article. -- Gogo Dodo 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Admin should also nuke Image:JKring.jpg which is only used in that page. Dgies 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the barefaced cheek of calling it a 'mainstay of internet culture' made me smile.--Nydas 10:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable 'theory'.--TheM62Manchester 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. It's hardly a "mainstay of Internet culture" if it's only been used on one forum. JIP | Talk 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably significantly less notable than Geogre's Law. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity page. --DarkAudit 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity page... a "mainstay" in 6 months or less indeed... --Svartalf 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, this term is not yet a mainstay. Yamaguchi先生 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus for deletion or merging, those who want to pursue merging are free to do so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuros MPEG4 Recorder 2[edit]

Delete Commercial for Neuros products. AlistairMcMillan 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

Something else I meant to mention. There are only two editors on the first nominated article. User:AKemmler and User:Stirwen. All of their edits have to do with Neuros. Also User:N0iz77 and User:JoeBorn seem to be here solely to promote Neuros and their products. AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a commercial, it seems like a description of the product and its functions, which is acceptable. Konman72 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps merge them all togetheras per Konman72 Rangek 19:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, there are dozens, perhaps scores, of similar products. None of them are 'notable.' Bustter 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Koffieyahoo 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising directory. Cedars 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not very notable as there are thousands of MPEG providers. With more press coverage, would be happy to keep. Stephen B Streater 08:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split Vote / Merge: Keep the article on the company Neuros Audio, LLC, which from independent press coverage appears to satisfy WP:CORP. Merge the two product articles and Joe Born into the company article; the products themselves and the individual executive are insufficiently notable. Fairsing 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Konman72. --Gray Porpoise 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except perhaps the company article, which might be spared depending on the actual size and notability of the company and products. There is no indication that the individual products or Mr. Born are notable enough to require separate articles. User:AKemmler appears to be an intern at Neuros ([5]) and User:Stirwen is a Neuros employee ([6]), which would seem to bring up an issue under the self-promotion provisions of WP:CORP. There is a separate article Neuros MPEG 4 Recorder 2 (different from the one in the nom without "2") which I would hope the closing admin would treat as part of the nomination, although I didn't want to add it after the fact and presume on the intentions of the existing Delete votes. Finally, there seems to be an existing Neuros article covering much of the same ground - whatever is kept should be merged and rationalized in one place. - David Oberst 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them into Neuros, except Joe Born (an obvious strong delete for spam). I get 21,300 Google hits searching for "Neuros MPEG4 Recorder 2". Notable enough for me. Replace them all with redirects. Ifnord 04:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meigs County, Ohio RACES[edit]

This is a non-notable local group with no outside verifiable sources establishing a reason for notability. Erechtheus 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All Google hits are to the article or Wikipedia forks/mirrors and a page listing Ohio amateur radio clubs--which tells us squat. [7] No assertion of notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — 36 max number if hits. I would have db-group Betacommand 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected. Morgan Wick 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical prosthetics[edit]

~~This is just a definition with little potential for expansion. Transwiki. Erechtheus 03:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)~~ Withdraw. I agree with the below editors and have boldly redirected as suggested. Erechtheus 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a vast potential for expansion, but any need is obviated by the already existing stub Prosthesis, to which it should be Redirected.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prosthesis alphaChimp ^laudare 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Betacommand 05:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prosthesis InvictaHOG 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enuff Said Records[edit]

zero non-Wikipedia ghits JianLi 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been watching this one since its inception, waiting for them to come up with anything notable about it. Viridae ^Talk 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert notability. -/- Warren 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — WP:NN Betacommand 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent vanity article (editor who authored it shares a name with one of the label's "founders"), and I couldn't find anything verifiable on any of the three records listed in the article, much less on the label itself. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom., fails WP:CORP --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per everyone else. You would think "one of the most influential crews of the entire rap game" would at least have a website! Morgan Wick 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Warrens. In very bad shape, non-notable record label/movement, and a search brings up almost nothing related to the article. --S-man 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cackbean[edit]

Article describes itself as being a GUI paradigm, but Google returns precisely two hits, both referring to this page. Article was created by a user with one edit, too, so it's probably a case of something someone made up in school one day. -/- Warren 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possible WP:CB.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — WP:NN Betacommand 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kchase T 05:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see what's speediable about it, but it's a clear neologism. Morgan Wick 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, most likely nonsense and best-case non-verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sango 123 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karate (Atari 2600)[edit]

This is an article about a non-noteable minor Atari game; furthermore, the only actual text in the article is a reference to a DIFFERENT article that says the game is "one of the worst ever on the Atari". On top of that, the only OTHER thing present in the article is a box that was ripped off the Atari Age website without permission. There is nothing in this article worth keeping. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless the site saying that it was one of the worst games is considered a valid source. The fact that the link exists isn't a bad thing, since it backs the claim up. BigHaz 05:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — could keep if it passes WP:NN and the POV is removed Betacommand 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the POV is the entirety of the article (with the exception of the copyright-vio pictures stolen from Atari Age). Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the POV goes, the fact that it's said to be such a bad game is a fact - while if the article said "It is one of the worst games...", that would be closer to POV. As it currently stands, the article says that someone else says that the game stinks and then links to a place where someone else says exactly that. The pictures and their copyright is a different matter. BigHaz 06:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's one of the worst games, I'd say that would be a claim to notability rather than non notability; If notability means goodness, Batman and Robin would be speediable. Even if the reference is removed, the game is of some visibility given the Atari source. As for the pictures, I imagine a fair use claim could be made. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Atari games are notable. The game is also mentioned in MobyGames. Carioca 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's labeled in external media as above for some notiriety, and merits a stub for that alone. And I hate my longing to help on AfD as it now reminded me of this thing. Ugh. rootology (T) 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Any game is notable....to me Konman72 10:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the reasons give by Rootology. 146.87.255.19 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real Atari 2600 game, article is very short but fairly well written, criticism is sourced. JIP | Talk 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real game for a notiable system. It may need expansion but I don't believe that deletion is required. --Edgelord 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JIP. Expansion would be nice, but deletion isn't necessary. BryanG^(talk) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a tasty quote from an established review site that backs up its notable awfulness, added it.
Keep. The article could stand to be expanded a bit, but I don't see how removing this helps Wikipedia. --L33tminion (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Rootology and Edgelord. Joe 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable for being really awful. It could stand expansion, though. Ace of Sevens 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could easily be expanded gameplay-wise. The image isn't a problem because it's been sourced to AtariAge. Also, DigitalPress is a notable site, so if the statement is made less POV (maybe by just merely mentioning the DP article), then that problem's solved as well. -- gakon5 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an article about a legitimate Atari 2600 title which should be expanded over time, the criticism should be clarified that the source is DigitalPress unless multiple sources agree on this point. Yamaguchi先生 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my "any game you could buy from stores worldwide (or at least nation-wide) is notable enough" gut feeling. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there werent so many Atari 2600 games that were made, and each is as notable as a pokemon character. This needs to stay and be expanded. ALKIVAR™ 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weren't so many? There are over six hundred I think. -- gakon5 03:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please if there are only 600 atari games we can document them all Yuckfoo 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical purposes. --Myles Long 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Butterfly[edit]

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Even if it's something you and your wife really like to do together. At the very least, this is original research. :-) Unverified, too. eaolson 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the rewrite. eaolson 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but most of the information presented here is original research in the sense that is it gathered from personal experience, research and experimentation. Do a google on "venus butterfly" - I'd expect Wikipedia to have something on the subject.

That is what my posting was - the results of vast research and experimation on the subject. My wife can verify the results - reluctantly, though. Do what you think is best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedalen (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~ per all three reasons in nom. It might merit a mention at cunnilingus, but how to determine notability of a particular one...? Failing that, just delete.--Kchase T 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as rewritten by Canadian Caesar. Well done. Now I don't think it should be placed in the cunnilingus section of the oral sex article, as a long description of a specific technique would look out of place there. Perhaps as a "see also" in the article.--Kchase T 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as per nom Betacommand 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to cunnilingus (nice rewrite). Not sure it marrets it own article would suggest the merge Betacommand 02:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sexcruft. It's also written terribly. Wikipedia has a wife now? Danny Lilithborne 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep per CanadianCaesar's nifty rewrite. Danny Lilithborne 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (bad) OR. If this were a better article, it might merit mention in cunnilingus, but certainly not as it stands. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The technique can be traced back to books by 'Anonymous' and so it is not original, but delete for all inclusiveness. Ohconfucius 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technique is certainly not OR, but oi, that awful essay....-- H·G (^words/_works) 07:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote it. I think the article now establishes notability, referenced to Canada's top sex expert as well as films such as Meet the Fockers. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect (vote change) following CanadianCaesar's rewrite. Works well as a blurb in cunnilingus; generally speaking, the only way I could see it continuing as a stand-alone article would be if more detail were added, but that's certainly not necessary for this topic. Still, not opposed to keeping it if this is deemed prudent. -- H·G (^words/_works) 09:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the author wrote a book, likely inventing the term and the act, the book but not the term got a mention in a movie and a magazine, and there is no indication that it is a sexual practice in the real world. -- Kjkolb 10:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the reference to Canada's top sex expert? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference where she says that she heard it on a 1970s soap opera? That's highly doubtful given the morality at the time, and a soap opera is not what I would consider a reliable source. If the term existed before the book, I suspect that it was an obscure slang term with various meanings. Finally, as I said before, there is no indication that it is a sexual practice in the real world (similar to donkey punch). I am not sure what would qualify as her as Canada's top sex expert. The only education given in the article is nursing. I would expect that Canada's top sex expert would be a physician (or at least a PhD) with additional training and possibly degrees in human sexuality, urology and obstectrics. -- Kjkolb 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect people would take her advice and try the technique- if she hadn't tried it herself. The book itself is good evidence that some people have tried this in the real world- a book dedicated to teaching it to people. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to L.A. Law. See my comment on Talk:Venus Butterfly. If, as I believe, this is a widespread piece of sexual folklore that originated in a TV show, and does not describe any one technique, then it doesn't really belong as a paragraph in cunnilingus. Merge and redirect to the TV show it came from, or keep for now if the origin is insufficiently established. --Celithemis 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. --TheM62Manchester 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That no longer applies. There are sources, now. Someone wrote an entire book on this.--Kchase T 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is unencyclopedic and would be better transwiki'd. --TheM62Manchester 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic how? Because it's about cunnilingus? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep An interesting article. --Guinnog 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rewrite. Yank sox 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and boldly edit. As far as I can tell, the thing is an Imaginary sexual Practice invented for L.A. Law. And even in the series its particulars are left undescribed. I don't know if some writers have baptized something by that name since, that is false and irrelevant. --Svartalf 02:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as rewritten by Canadian Caesar. Yamaguchi先生 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of rewrite. --Gray Porpoise 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I'd move the "L.A. Law" reference up to the top paragraph. To my knowledge, that was where the term was first invented, and everything after that was a struggle to try and come up with a definition for something that had been deliberately left undefined in fiction. It's definitely a notable term though. --Elonka 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street: Wild World[edit]

Hoax. No such game on Google searches for Sesame Street: Wild World (animal crossing does exist). Prod removed --Clappingsimon talk 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Hoax Betacommand 05:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; I couldn't find any verification that anything with this title exists; nor does the article really clarify what this is supposed to be (I assume a video game). -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is definitely a joke article. - Thorne N. Melcher 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Th ε Halo ^Θ 13:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a joke -- jokes have to show an attempt at 'funny.' This is hoax. Bustter 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially with creator removing AfD tag. Clear hoax. Morgan Wick 01:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not the forum for this: use {{copyvio}} if you find any. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Order[edit]

Strong DeleteThis article is awful. Chock full of spelling, grammar and usage errors. Most of the article is just c&p from Kappa Alpha website. L0b0t 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. If you don't like the spelling, grammar, etc. then fix it, you don't nominate it for AfD --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a matter of one liking the spelling (My personal opionion won't make someone a better speller.). I have fixed many of the minor problems, but it is still poorly written and copied almost verbatim from another source. I'm not in that fraternity so I don't feel qualified to write a whole article about it. Maybe a member would like to write an article but as it stands this is just a vanity page.L0b0t 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using your logic almost every single fraternity and sorority article is vanity and should also be placed on AfD. Even if it is copy and paste you put a copyright violation tag and not an AfD tag. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Bad faith Nom Betacommand 05:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless this is clearly copyvio. But what page is this material allegedly copied from? Otherwise, I see nothing here that warrants deletion--copy-edit problems are not grounds for deletion. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic The Hedgehog Online[edit]

Appears to be dead, most of the text is copied from other sources, and is a very minor part of both Halo and Sonic. Bronzey 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 42 google hits for "Sonic The Hedgehog Online" and Halo, and damn, its a mod. Mods shouldn't get articles unless they are highly notable. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this deserves to be deleted. Hell, they're really dedicated tot he mod, and they've been working at it for two years. It shows infinite promise for the future, and most of the content is in fact not copied from elsewhere. ~BlackArmsShadow

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN, fails WP:WEB. Also has CopyVio concerns. As a general rule, mods and hacks and the like shoudn't be on wikipedia unless highley notable (the hot coffee mod, for example). Th ε Halo ^Θ 13:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete: This mod is far from dead. It might be a fan based mod but I belive all mod should have a chagne of being placed up on here. If no then you should delete them all - includign the hot coffee mod. From what I've seen this mod has a huge fan base in both the sonic and halo commutiy thought their seems to be a few that dont like the mod as the dotn like halo, sonic and fan-games such as that. If thisn't adversting etehr it like the rest of wikipidia - just giving infomation about their game, like sonic robo 2 game, hot coffee etc: From Gellian "reserch before jugment everytime"

Delete I'm all for listing mods, but only if they are both significant and released. Maybe recreate when this is done. Ace of Sevens 21:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the kids at the forum are getting together to work on the entry. They aren't Wikians, they'll need time and guidance. I'll try to help 'em out when I'm wikiing. Bustter 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable, even among mods, and it's pretty crystal ball-ish as well. No disrespect intended toward your work, and no bias against re-creation if it's ultimately released and covered in mainstream media. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 11:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per bull/steak/etc... Wickethewok 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above LactoseTI 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsterhood[edit]

The subject of this article is a non-notable, text-based online game. I proposed it for deletion, and the creator removed the {{prod}} tag. NatusRoma | Talk 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails the various WP guidelines and doesn't have that large of a userbase. - Thorne N. Melcher 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:WEB and WP:NN Th ε Halo ^Θ 13:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable clone of a hundred other such games, and one with a rather small userbase, per Thorne. --Yst 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then redirect. Sango 123 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holding Pattern[edit]

No evidence this is a notable piece of software. An unconfirmed award from download.com doesn't assert notability. A search for holding pattern there does not turn up this software or its award. No mention of the award on the official site.--Crossmr 06:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Holding (aviation). Oh, and I suspect the award refers to CNET's rating of the screensaver as five stars, not a real award, per se. [8] --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — As per Above Reedy Boy 20:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holding (aviation). Very plausible search term. As is, it's just an advert. Morgan Wick 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojas and Kambodia[edit]

I can't tell whether this article is a copyvio of [9], or if it's the other way around, and I'm looking for input on this. If this article is a copyvio, it has to be deleted. In any case, though, the article is a jumbled mess that contains some inappropriate ownership language, although it can be cleaned up, and so if not copyvio, medium strong keep, but opinion is requested. --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mergeto Cambodia. Looking at the derivation of the term, I consider it should be merged with Cambodia. In similar transliteration cases, redirection is the most common choice: Bombay is redirected to Mumbai and Peking to Beijing.Ohconfucius 07:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm going to make an educated guess that the website you linked to copied this from Wikipedia, based on one small fact: the link at the top ("For Kamboja migration to West/Southwest India, see: [8]") works in the WP article (and goes to an anchor in another WP article), but goes nowhere in the kambojsociety.com article. -- H·G (^words/_works) 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not copied from Kambojsociety.

To the participants here, the article Kambojas and Kambodia on Kambojsociety [10] has been copied from the Wikipedia and not the otherway round. There are numerous other articles on Kambojas which the Kambojsociety website has copied from Wikipedia and placed in their website. Hope this removes any misunderstanding here.Sze cavalry01 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of new facts. I sent a msg to the folks at KambojSociety notifying them of their copyright problem. Hopefully they will stop trying to copyright stuff they take from wikipedia. We'll see.--Kchase T 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not Wikipedia's intent to let others copy and use/distribute the Wiki articles for the spread of education/information? If that is so, the Kambojsociety website is simply placing the Wikipedia Articles of interest to them on their site for the spread of information. Probably they should somewhere say that the articles belong to Wikipedia.

By the way, I have no bad feeling regarding that. Sze cavalry01 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much bad feeling about it, either, and I agree with you about our goals. The problem is just that it creates extra work for us if they do that with many articles (b/c things like this happen). If they note that the material is licensed under the GFDL, then there's no copyright problem for either party, even if someone thinks WP copied the material from elsewhere, as long as that material was originally licensed under copyleft.--Kchase T 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that at the same time that they copied the material, they also put a copyright notice on the bottom of the page and did not acknowledge Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, recreated content. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey jack[edit]

Neologism. Was prod-ed and deleted back in July. Few relevant GHits. Gogo Dodo 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NFT. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Vanity article. Delete unless drastically improved. St.isaac 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreated deleted article --mboverload @ 08:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dina 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 La Ronde (amusement park). Ifnord 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mégadôme[edit]

A display area for Nintendo products does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It is possible that the original dolphin tank might be noteworthy, but it is impossible to tell from this article. Delete. Skeezix1000 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge into La Ronde? --JGGardiner 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history, I see that was suggested in 2005 when this article was first put up for AfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mégadôme). I have no problem with merging into La Ronde, although I'm not sure if there is anything worth merging. The article strikes me as entirely deletable. Is a Nintendo promotional display noteworthy enough to merit mentioning in the La Ronde article? I can't tell from this article if the former dolphin talk is noteworthy or not. Maybe someone with more familiarity with La Ronde and this so-called Mégadôme could shed some light on this. --Skeezix1000 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't incomplete. For some bizarre reason, Whispering removed it from the July 30 AfD log ([11]).--Skeezix1000 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into La Ronde (amusement park). Rohirok 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. --Ardenn 01:54, 4 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rohirok. Viridae ^Talk 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rohirok. -- danntm ^T _C 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muck bowl[edit]

An annual high school football game. Notable? Sarge Baldy 06:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless the schools themselves are deemed notable, in which case their rivalry might scrape in. BigHaz 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have articles about either of the high schools involved, but no doubt such articles would be kept if they were written. Nevertheless, having an annual "rivalry game" is common in high school sports, and the question should be whether the Muck Bowl is a notable example of that. It does get some Google hits, but many seem to be from local media or a local web forum. It gets no Google Groups hits at all. --Metropolitan90 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The schools themselves might be deserving of articles, but certainly not a rivalry game. My alma mater produced an NFL hall-of-famer, and I don't even think our rivalry game deserves an article. - Thorne N. Melcher 09:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High schools are hardly notable (or often, in my opinion, non notable). An annual game between two of them is utterly non notable. Fram 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Melcher and Metro. There are, I think, three or four high school rivalry games that might be notable (e.g., that between Union and Jenks High Schools, which has received fairly regular coverage from USA Today, Sports Illustrated, ESPN The Magazine, and The Sporting News, or that between Mater Dei and Long Beach Polytechnic High Schools, although I'm not sure that the latter game is contested with frequency), inasmuch as they are nationally known and notable in view of their media currency (plainly not in view of their athletic significance), but this surely isn't one. Joe 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable high school football game is not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some high school programs might be notable if they produce an extremely disproportionate number of pros, but a rivalry game is not notable FancyPants 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable LactoseTI 02:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable group. Turnstep 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K3BSA[edit]

Amateur radio station. Slightly more notable than the average ham in their shack. This one introduces scouts to amateur radio. But still not notable and a dangerous precedent to allow any amateur radio call sign. -- RHaworth 06:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no claim of significance is made --RMHED 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Bentley[edit]

WP:BIO subject not notable: football coach, who have coached kids with unrealised potential in high school are a dime a dozen Ohconfucius 06:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Despite is saying that he's nationally recognized, I only find 553 ghits. Fails WP:BIO alphaChimp ^laudare 07:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 12:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO as not notible. Th ε Halo ^Θ 13:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Bogsat 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-IPTV[edit]

The article of the show that Open IPTV came from, Bastard Sons of Dial-Up, is also being nominated for deletion. azumanga 06:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no assertion of notablity per any WP standard. Also looks like WP:OR, no WP:RS. --Wine Guy Talk 21:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into IPTV article. Unclear why this needs its own article. Fairsing 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fleming[edit]

Decision was Delete Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable fictional character character stub with litle or no content. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Charles Escott

Bobbi Smythe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs)

Delete all per WP:FICT. These articles are one-sentence stubs about characters in a book series, but Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the series. --Metropolitan90 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baleete Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and replace with bio of the real Jack Fleming, the late voice of the WVU Mountaineers and Pittsburgh Steelers. --DarkAudit 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Missmarple 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete there is no content on the page that would make this person notable. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notmally I hate seeing thins nominated for notability but this truely deserves it. Mallanox 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The majority of editors arguing for deletion brings it close to that point, but as there isn't a particularly overwhelming argument against the numerous, apparently independent web articles being ineligible to be considered "reliable and reputable" (several are certainly not blogs), it's insufficient. None of the evidence presented appears to have significantly changed the direction of the discussion, but little of it was directly replied to, leaving this discussion inconclusive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moulann[edit]

Notability appears to be unshown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Article just need expansion. Notability isn't official reason for deleting articles. Until that clause is added to official policy, there must be another reason to justify the deletion. Monni 07:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I believe she may be asserting her notability by abandonning her surname. However, fails WP:BIO - subject not notable. none of the Google hits are from credible sites or without commercial interests. Ohconfucius 08:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The awards are respectable, but the WP:BAND criteria aren't met. Also, I can't find a review at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ or http://www.thestar.com/ , which I would have expected for a Toronto musician. http://www.google.com/search?q=Moulann+site%3Anowtoronto.com shows several listings but no reviews. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - See this link on Alexa - this may be on a fairly artist-friendly source, but it has some facts on the popularity of some of her songs. The article as it is needs to be rewritten, I think, but she might be worth some sort of article. --Brianyoumans 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appears to fail WP:BAND given the information in the article and a quick googling. Interestingly, the first award link (the only one I'd consider to be a "major music competition") 404s. The others I wouldn't consider to be major competitions (maybe the Shonen Jump one... maybe). More verifiable information may sway my vote, however. Additionally, to answer the concern raised in the first keep vote, I should point out that notability is often considered a requirement for anarticle being encyclopedic and not just random information (which is a requirement for inclusion as per WP:NOT). See WP:NN for details. You may not agree with the concept of notability, but the overall consensus of those involved with AfD seems to be that it is, indeed, a very valid reason for deletion. --FreelanceWizard 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well... Google cache still shows first link in awards. [12]. Try reading the cached copy. Monni 16:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, didn't think to check that. Anyway, upon reading that and the Canadian Music Competition site, I think being a finalist in it wouldn't count to pass WP:MUSIC. My vote remains delete.

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and I can't find any notiblity. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even last.fm, which chronicles obscure musical tastes quite well, shows fewer than ten users who favor her material.

Oppose Moulann is an independent artist. WP:BAND One of the notability guidelines is that a performer outside the mass media tradition should be " frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" - she appears to be in numerous publications devoted to at least one extremely notable sub-culture: The North-American Asian Community. I've added a few links I found. Flaxen0 1:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User's only edits are here and to the article in question. --Nlu (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of several prizes although the music style she makes causes her to attract no MTV-like attention. Article is well referenced from indepedent sources although it could use a more encyclopedic character. Also, as stated above, all the notability essays should be used with extreme caution especially in the case of specific sub-culture topics or people with less mass-media exposure. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I can't and won't vote against keeping musicians I've personally heard on the radio. Bearcat 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. She comes close to meeting WP:BAND, but in the end can't quite clear the hurdle. Perhaps later in her career. Fairsing 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vanessa Mae, pardon my French, is notable, Moulann is not. Ohconfucius 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are different levels of notability. Vanessa Mae, has been promoted heavily for years by a record label. In contrast, Moulann is a completely independent artist. The two artists are representing completely different genres and markets. Remember that there is room in wiki for artists outside the mass media tradition. Moulann has been documented at least 3 times (that I've found online and personally heard) on CBC Radio One, Canada's most notable and credible radio station, as well as other significant Canadian and Asian-Canadian media. Flaxen0 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "documented" you speak of? Did she have her own feature show, or was a song of hers played on the radio? ~ trialsanderrors 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "documented" I speak of is having been featured and interviewed on radio shows, and having songs of hers played on the radio. She's not in regular rotation on commercial stations, but I've heard her on CBC a few times and seen her in some of Toronto's Chinese newspapers Flaxen0 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Halo. Ifnord 05:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a non-notable club. Turnstep 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratt F.C.[edit]

Amateur indoor football team, no evidence that they are particularly notable. The bar for football clubs is generally set much high than this. — sjorford ++ 07:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the Google links that come up seem to be about completely different topics. Additionally, all of the people involved in the founding and maintaining of the club are red-linked, further supporting its non-notability. - Thorne N. Melcher 09:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non notible football club. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you ever heard of Bury F.C. Didn't think so, but your not going to delete them are you? Of all the insignificant football teams on wikipedia, this is hardly the most obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikosss13 (talk • contribs)
Yes, I have heard of Bury FC. (that's assuming you mean this one). They're an Eglish club playing in league two. The difference is that Bury is a professional football team, and notible, while Ratt F.C. is an amateur team. It simply is not notable. Th ε Halo ^Θ 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no claim to notability --RMHED 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bearhanded Russians[edit]

Fails WP:BAND, tagged for speedy, but a novice editor removed it. Rklawton 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax. Can't find anything on Google or Yahoo. Granted, the band supposedly broke up in 1987, but there ought to be something about it somewhere if it existed. I have also flagged the article on the band's record label, Jesus Fish (Label), as a possible hoax. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not, but either way, it definatly fails WP:MUSIC. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability. Nuttah68 15:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Beauchman[edit]

WP:BIO, A really good college athlete - but that's about the sum of his life. Speeded once already. Rklawton 07:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should I include the amazing outreach programs he installed at yale for the young black kids in the community? would that keep the page up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirrc (talk • contribs)

First, read the links I've posted on your Talk page. Second, read WP:BIO. This will help familiarize you with Wikipedia's standards and help point out areas where this article might be improved. Lastly, please sign your comments with four tilde's so we'll know who posted them. Rklawton 08:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep and expand.~~ How I read WP:BIO is that someone who manages to land All-American status in the NCAA would just barely meet the standard for amateur sports players ("Sportspeople/athletes who have played... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States"). However, I'd like to see some citations for the claims in the article, and right now there's nothing in the article that clearly states his achievements specifically enough for a good judgment to be made on his notability. If someone knowledgeable in track and field competitions could make a determination, I'd change my vote to support theirs. --FreelanceWizard 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the article's primary claim to notability, at least as I read WP:BIO, appears to be unverifiable as per research by Joe. As such, my vote changes to delete. --FreelanceWizard 03:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part is unverifiable? Not the All-American part, not his economics major part. So what part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Say Keep.. The kid was amazing at Nationals as we almost never see anyone from the ivy league in the jumps do as well as this kid did. I'm sure he broke his school records as well. Sounds like a pretty decent kid too. -- Tracksharked 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above user's only contribution to Wikipedia consist of what you see here. Read into that what you will, but I don't think it helps the case any. Rklawton 17:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he makes a career in sports, he may be reintroduced. As for now, he is only potentially notable. Fram 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable inasmuch (a) as the subject's Yale University biography and DirectAthletics athlete history suggest that Beauchman did not earn All-America honors (having, instead, been named a finalist to be an Academic All-America and an Academic All-Ivy Team member; (b) as, assuming arguendo that Beauchman was honored as an All-America, he is nevertheless non-notable per WP:BIO, which, pace Freelance, I construe to reference, with respect to (American college sports, only those sports that are themselves notorious (meriting, for example, articles apropos of coaches [e.g., Rick Barnes] or teams [e.g., 2005 Texas Longhorns football team]), such that those partaking of such sports are likely to be newsworthy or are, in significant numbers, likely to essay profesional careers—as against those of NCAA basketball, football, and baseball, participants in NCAA track-and-field are, even those earning All-America honors, are in many cases profoundly unlikely to pursue professional sports—and (c) as, irrespective of the extent to which the subject's biography comports with WP:BIO, I'm not a particular fan of the broad sportspeople criterion of BIO. FWIW, it seems well-settled that any extra-athletic activities undertaken the subject don't confer notability, so it can, I think, be safely said that Pirrc need not to adduce the subject's community service toward the proposition of the subject's notability. Wow, I began that entry intending to support weak keep and, as is my wont, got a bit pleonastic.Joe 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I Say Keep.~~(References). http://ustfccca.cstv.com/sports/division1/spec-rel/061906aab.html and also http://ustfccca.cstv.com/sports/division1/spec-rel/071306aab.html , i am part of this group, so this should vefiry that he was both an all-american and academic all-american -- Tracksharked 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say editors shouldn't vote twice in the same AfD. I also think that editors who do want to vote twice should have a total of more than two contributions to Wikipedia, unlike your case. Rklawton 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above, as well as WP:BIO: "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Vanity. Although the subject should be congratulated for attaining All American status, having ONLY THIS ACHIEVEMENT does not make the subject "widely recognizable" or "memorable" (as per the 100-year test in Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies) or "encyclopedic". Even if you apply the Google-test, the results can be partitioned into two groups: 1) publications by his alma mater, and 2) results from competitions. By the way, when WP:BIO states "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States", I would suggest that the "highest level" in the subject's sport would be at the Olympic level. Ultimately, the question is: "Is the subject well known BEFORE being placed as an entry into the Wikipedia?" The answer is: "No." (And as an afterthought, what about an athlete for a sport like American football, which is not a game included in the Olympics? For American college football, the "highest level" would probably be the Heisman Trophy.)

Wookiepedian 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you cite the two parts of WP:BIO that are said to not have broad support, while ignoring the part that does and that is more binding - his achievements "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." The subject was indeed well known in his area prior to being an entry here, the verifiable information proves it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Just because something is verifiable does not make it encyclopedic or notable or worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Your referenced "verifiable" article [13] states that he achieved 11th place at the NCAA Track & Field Championship. That competition is not the "highest level" in the field of high jump, and his performance was not the "highest level" even within the competition. The Wikipedia article for high jump has, as its illustration, "Gold medal winner Ethel Catherwood of Canada scissors over the bar at the 1928 Summer Olympics." Are you suggesting that the Olympic games are at a lesser level than the NCAA Track & Field Championship? (When I read the phrase "at the highest level...including college sports in the United States", I'm assuming that the phrase means "at the highest level of a sport which could be played in college, including sports played in the United States not played anywhere else in the world", which takes precedence over "at the highest United-States-level of college-sports-in- the-United-States". There's a subtle difference, which goes back to the American football and Heisman Trophy example I gave earlier. )

Wookiepedian 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, Wookiepedian 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was the highest level at the competition, as it granted him All-American status. That makes him one of the tops in the nation that year. I've always read the "highest level" clause as "We have articles on professional athletes, which is the highest possible level for those sports, and articles on the top atheletes at the amateur level when there's no professional alternative," such as these track stars. The Olympic Games are an entirely different situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a hand-picked national team that competes internationally in these sports? I find that hard to believe. Surely that would be the next logical level above college competitions. Rklawton 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badlydrawnjeff, it is possible to be a high jumper after college; see [14] (also located in Wikipedia as Charles Austin), who was born in 1967 and "proved he is still a force by winning the 2003 U.S. indoor title.". According to the article, Austin even has an agent (Cubie Seegobin) . Likewise, college athletes do participate in the high jump in the Olympics, such as Hollis Conway: "Conway went 7-8 3/4 in the event at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea, setting a U.S. collegiate record and earning a silver medal. He won a bronze medal in the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain after going 7-8 1/2 in winning the U.S. Olympic Team Trials that year." There are also other international venues; check out the Wikipedia entry regarding International Association of Athletics Federations. As far as Beauchman's earning 11th place in the competition, there are only ten All American high jumpers [15]. Furthermore, "He was the eighth American in the field" of that particular compeition [16], so apparently two All-Americans didn't compete in that particular NCAA competition (or did worse than he did?), and at least three foreign-born students did better than he did...? So I'm guessing a) that All American status is determined by one's overall performance during a season, and therefore b) that the particular competition in which he placed 11th was not THE highest level ("the IAAF" equivalent or "international ultimate-finale event") in his field.

Wookiepedian 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(minor clarifications)Wookiepedian 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Ambiguous "eighth")Wookiepedian 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the collegiate level, this is THE highest level meet. Anything beyond, including the olympics, would no longer fall under the scope of the collegiate level. The status of All-American is awarded to the top 8 finishers and the top 8 americans overall in an event AT the NCAA National Meet. Beauchman was the 8th finishing american, earning the HIGHEST recognition by the USTFCCCA and the NCAA. The finisher in 9th was not an american, and because of this only 10 persons were awarded All-American status. While the specualtion about whether this is the highest level has been only that, speculation, as a track and field coach, I can assure you that this IS the highest level meet on the collegiate level, therefore satisfying the guidlines set forth by Wikipedia. Look at any collegiate track and field team schedule, and you will notice it is the final meet, and the meet most prized by all programs, with only their most talented and dedicated competing at that level. Tracksharked 22:58, 10 August 2006

Tracksharked, so that brings up three questions:

Question 1: According to your explanation, is it correct to draw the conclusion that "All American" status could be conferred in the field of high jump in any given year upon anywhere between eight students (all top 8 finishers are American born) and sixteen students (top 8 finishers are foreign-born, followed by 8 American born) ?

Question 2: Would the following situation be possible: Suppose all but one high jumper at this final event had been born outside the United States. The sole American-born student earns dead-last place among all the competitors. But he still would get "All American" status, correct?

Question 3: Is the NCAA National Meet limited to American colleges, or can colleges from other countries (such as from Germany) participate?
Wookiepedian 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scenarios you suggested above would be possible, yet that american who finished last would still be the BEST american collegiate high jumper in the country, quite an achievement in itself. But I believe you are approaching this competition in the wrong manner. The amount of qualifying for the event means that only the BEST collegiate atheletes will make it to the meet, and only the ELITE will excel. All atheltes who wish to compete must meet a qualifying standard in order to enter a regional meet. Then at the 4 regional meets (east, mideast, midwest, west), only the top 5 are guarenteed a spot at the national meet(Beauchman finished second at the regional meet, losing first only in a jump-off with a florida jumpoff). This double qualifying means only the best are invited to the National meet, which is only for schools in the NCAA, which are US schools. International schools have different requirements of their students who are allowed to compete (no age limit or amateur requirement), so there is no world collegiate meet. I hope that helps.Tracksharked 03:55, 11 August 2006

Thank you for the clarification regarding my questions. It sounds to me that the NCAA National Meet is very important in the domain of the NCAA (or more specifically, Division I college athletics?), and is the final word in the realm of NCAA participants, but arguably it is not the final word for college athletes in general. There was nothing stopping him from participating in the Olympic trials during college or afterwards except for his desire to participate and his own performance in trials, correct? If Beauchman wins a medal at the Olympics, then he most probably would deserve to be included in the Wikipedia, for he would likely become "well known" (his name would probably be printed in every newspaper in the country, and he would probably appear on national television for the awards ceremony and/or interviews); otherwise, ONLY winning the NCAA National Meet or gaining All American status would be insufficient. The spirit of the guidelines in Wikipedia: BIO emphasizes that people must be "widely recognized", "well-known", "whose work is widely recognized", or of "renown or notoriety". Wikipedia: BIO states (bold emphasis mine) "People who satisfy at least one of the items below generally merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." In other words, the criteria are not a guarantee for inclusion, but only increase the probability of inclusion: a person could be the winner of the NCAA National Meet yet also still be completely obscure to the general public, and therefore not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. I went over to www.ncaa.org, and typed in "Beauchman" in the search field; it replied with "No results matched your query".

Wookiepedian 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookiepedian 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wookiepedian's arguments are persuasive. I find "I went over to www.ncaa.org, and typed in "Beauchman" in the search field; it replied with "No results matched your query". especially so. Ifnord 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AFD is not cleanup. Learn to edit, please.--SB | T 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian English[edit]

Essential points are false; No verification possible. Agent X 08:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sofixit would apply. There are so many types of English that have articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt this one is non notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some Googling [17] [18] and I can't find any independent verification of the claims in the article. That doesn't mean they aren't verifiable, of course, but I'd expect to find something. An article that claims the existence of a dialect, I think, should be deleted if no citations can be provided to validate the claim. However, I'm not familiar with this topic, so I don't know what may or may not exist in the academic literature. I'd say leave it with the unreferenced notice, put up a factual accuracy dispute notice if you challenge its validity, and start looking for some sources one way or the other. If it really is unverifiable, and there's some research to back that up, then it should be relisted on AfD. --FreelanceWizard 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can confirm that official sites in Hawai'i use the spelling of the Hawai'ian language for Hawai'ian words. The official State of Hawai`i website at http://www.hawaii.gov/portal/ uses the spelling Hawai`i. The article has been around for a long time and seems well-researched. Note, however, that a Google search for "Hawaiian English" will turn up a lot of bilingual Hawaiian-to-English dictionaries rather than a description of the standard English spoken and written in Hawai'i. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I just added to the stub/article's talk page. It quotes from the constitution to show that essential points of the stub/article are obviously FALSE. According to Wikipedia policies, the burden to verify is on those who want to keep, not on those who want to remove. Agent X 09:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]" (italic added for emphasis)
1. As correctly noted above by Bugmuncher, there is NO SUCH THING as "Hawaiian English" in "The Constitution of the State of Hawaii". It is "English", NOT "Hawaiian English", that is an official language of the State of Hawaii. The stub/article makes a FALSE statement and misrepresents the law.
2. Hawaiian language is NEVER REQUIRED in any State of Hawaii activities UNLESS specifically "provided by law". There are NO STATE LAWS requiring the use of Hawaiian language. The stub/article makes another FALSE statement, and again misrepresents the law.
3. The mere optional use of a macron and an opening single quote (so-called `okina), by certain enthusiasts (zealots), does NOT create a "dialect" of English.
4. The claim that use of the two marks is preferred by the majority of Hawaii's people is the DELUSION of an "okina lunatic".
5. The stub/article uses the word "Standard" to describe "Hawaiian English". There is NO SUCH THING as "Standard Hawaiian English". Where are the alleged "standards"? Where are they published? Who has the authority to fabricate such "standards"?
6. The stub/article has NOT ONE reference, and NOT ONE citation. According to Wikipedia:Citing Sources, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor". According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to keep the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
Agent X 09:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, really, you could have just linked the talk page. However, from reading this, uh, diatribe, it seems to me like there's some POV pushing going on here. Anyway, let me throw out a few academic references that I skimmed, courtesy of JSTOR. Standard English and Student Bodies: Institutionalizing Race and Literacy in Hawai'i (Young, M., 2002; College English 64:4) addresses the way the pidgin and ASE have clashed up until now, with some specific information on the varying uses of it in the culture. There's also the ancient The English Dialect of Hawaii (Reinecke, J. E., & Tokimasa, A., 1934; American Speech 9:1) which does, however, seem to address the creole more specifically. English Patterns in Hawaii (Odo, C., 1970; American Speech 45:3/4) talks about Hawaiian English specifically. Just by looking at JSTOR's results, it seems that what academic literature there is a bit old and may well be talking about Hawaii Creole English instead. Perhaps this article ought to be redirected there instead of deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreelanceWizard (talk • contribs) on 10:09, August 6, 2006. It's in the history, guy, you could have looked it up any time.
The above comment is unsigned, so it's not clear who to address. Anyway, pointing out that certain statements in an encyclopedia article are false is a community service, not "POV pushing". Note that the article/stub clearly attempts to distinguish "Hawaiian English" from "Hawaiian Pidgin". So the suggestion to redirect to "Hawaii Creole English" does not fly. Agent X 11:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely rewritten before the AFD is over. Hawaiian English exists, of course, but it is not a written standard distinct from American English, as the article implies. Hawaiian English is the variety of American English spoken in Hawaii; to some extent it overlaps with acrolectal Hawaiian Creole English. I'm sure plenty can be said about how the Hawaiian accent differs from General American and what the lexical differences are, provided reliable sources are cited. If the article is rewritten based on those sources, I'll change my vote. But the current version of the article is rubbish and should be deleted. User:Angr 10:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some sources for you to work from. Deleting the article will lose them. Keep. Uncle G 11:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the sources. The article still needs to be rewritten to incorporate the information in them, though. User:Angr 11:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawaiian Pidgin if no proof can be presented that "Hawaiian English" is clearly distinct from standard American English. There are surely some minor dialectical difference but no more than you'd find, in say, New Jersey or South Florida. It seems that the pidgin is the only distinct language cited in the sources on JSTOR. If not redirect, then Delete. Andrew Levine 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 journal articles and 3 books in the Further Reading section of the article are not convincing? As for "no more different than New Jersey or South Florida", did you not see New York–New Jersey English and Southern American English linked to at the bottom of the article? If Hawaiian English is, as you say, akin to them, then the logical decision is "keep". You appear to have skipped over at least two thirds of the article. Uncle G 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did check some of the journal articles and they seemed to indicate that there are no major differences between the article's subject and standard American English. I removed several of the references because it was clear from reading them that they had nothing to do with the subject of this article and were rather about Hawaiian Creole or Pidgin. I will see if I can check the rest later. Andrew Levine 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely rewritten before the AFD is over. Does the user who nominated for deletion get to vote? If not, ignore my vote. Otherwise, I second the comments of user Angr. The existing main text, which has been around for about 2 years now, is factually incorrect. When the clearly false statements are removed, there's next to nothing left.
I have lived in Hawaii for about 50 years. Do any of you find my writing to constitute a "standard dialect" of "Hawaiian English"? If I had not told you that I've lived in Hawaii for 50 years, would you have known, from my written English, that I have?
Hawaii is very diverse linguistically. Diversity wreaks havoc on "standardness". Our statewide community is one of the most racially mixed, economically mixed, socially mixed, educationally mixed, and linguistically mixed, in the USA. We have over 800,000 short-term visitors (tourists) per year, nearly equalling our total population. A significant portion of our residents are military personnel and families who move on to their next assignment after a few years here. We have significant continuous immigration from around the world, and many locally born-and-raised people move away as adults because the median cost for a house is over $600,000 and most of us can't afford that. In such a dynamic, transient, and diverse population, you don't get a "standard" dialect of anything. If you search long enough, you might be able to find books that make almost any claims that you want to "verify". But just because something got published, that doesn't guarantee that it's claims are true. Anyway, if one of you people who want to keep the "Hawaiian English" article manages to write up an intelligent piece that does not make clearly false claims, that will be okay with me. But the current "rubbish", as Angr correctly described it, must be DELETED. Agent X 11:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the content is wrong, then hit the edit tab on the article and edit it to make it right. You have 14 potential sources in the article to work from. AFD is not Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite. A dialect is not exclusive to written language, by the way. Uncle G 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Uncle G --- I'm for delete. There is no reason for me to "make it right". The burden is on YOU, or whoever votes "keep", to look at your 14 potential sources. As for "dialect", see my reply to Calton below. Agent X 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you find my writing to constitute a "standard dialect" of "Hawaiian English"? I find your writing indicates that you're unclear of the meaning of "dialect", if nothing else. --Calton | Talk 12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your writing indicates that you fail to read with comprehension, and you fail to read the relevant parts of the discussion, such as the article nominated for deletion and its talk page. You should read what I wrote about ee cummings, as well as my reply to your ignorant comments below. Agent X 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable dialect. Carlossuarez46 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it "notable"? SPECIFY exactly what you KNOW, not what you think, assume, or guess, but what you KNOW makes Hawaiian English (not Hawaiian, not Hawaiian Pidgin, not Hawaiian Creole English) "notable". Put up or shut up. Agent X 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawaiian Pidgin. This article in its current state is basically wrong. If somebody wants to write a decent article on a real topic of Hawaiian English, let them do so and then put it where the redirect was, but keeping this is not helpful to anyone. GassyGuy 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that would be wrong. See below. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make heads or tails of the information in the first paragraph of this article. If you'd like to rewrite it using whatever sources you have, I'd be happy to reconsider, but as it stands that one is particularly bad. If I understand what it's trying to say, it's just wrong, but as you say otherwise, perhaps I'm just misreading it. I take less umbrage with the second paragraph but I honestly think one would do better to start from scratch than to attempt to use this as a base. The redirect isn't the perfect use of this name but, in my opinion, it's more useful than what it currently houses. GassyGuy 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the legal recognition LactoseTI 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To LactoseTI --- WHAT "legal recognition"????? I challenge you to cite and quote ANY LAW that recognizes HAWAIIAN ENGLISH. There's no such law. Put up or shut up. Agent X 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what the nominator's problem is, but a quick look at my Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992, edited by Tom McArthur) says this is completely 100% valid, whatever weird tangents about law he goes off on. Half-page entry on ppg 463-4, covering distinctive features, vocabulary, local usage (like giving directions: "Go ewa one block, turn makai at the traffic light, go two blocks Diamond Head, and you'll find the place on the mauka side of the street"). And before you ask, there are separate entries for "Hawaii", "Hawaiian", "Hawaii Creole English", AND "Hawaii Pidgin English", so no, they're no confusing "Hawaiian English" with anything else. And the nom's ranting about the okina is contradicted by the "Hawaiian" article, where it describes the glottal stop "where some have /k/, marked in technical writing by a reverse inverted apostrophe (’) and in general usage by an ordinary apostrophe (') (mu’umu’u or mu'umu'u for mukumuku, a loose-fitting woman's dress)..." As for pronunciation, anecdotally, I have no doubt it's true, going by the word of my sister who lives in Hawaii. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Calton --- You call The Constitution of the State of Hawaii a "weird tangent". It's quoted above. You should try reading the discussion, with comprehension, before opening your mouth. You should also read the article nominated for deletion. As you can see, if you actually read the relevant discussion above, I seconded the comments of Angr, who pointed out that a dialect is spoken language, as opposed to written. It is the writer of the Hawaiian English article, not me, who has claimed that the use of okinas in WRITING has created a dialect of American English. In asking if anyone finds my writing to constitute a "standard dialect" of "Hawaiian English", I am pointing out that nobody can. Apparently that was "over your head". As for your comment about glottal stops, you are demonstrating profound ignorance. The stuff you quoted relates to Hawaiian, NOT to Hawaiian English. In the historical development of the Hawaiian phonemes, Proto Polynesian *k is reflected as Hawaiian /ʔ/. Diachronic sound changes do not take place instantly throughout the lexicon, some words are like stragglers, and some simply resist a sound change even though the change affects nearly every other word in the language. That's why there are some variant forms, like mukumuku and mu`umu`u. The older form has k, the newer form has glottal stop. But again, your quote is totally irrelevant to Hawaiian English, and it demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. If you are interested in Hawaiian phonology, check out my contributions to the Hawaiian language and Hawaiian phonology pages. When I first contributed to the Hawaiian language page, before having a user account, I put in a citation. It was the first and only citation in the article. Every single citation that's in the article now was put in by me. As for the use of directional expressions, like "mauka" or "makai", it's not something that everyone has to use. I've been speaking English in Hawaii for about 50 years, and I don't use "mauka" or "makai". Some people do. But the usage of "some people" does not make it "standard" for all speakers. When I speak Hawaiian (not "Hawaiian English"), which I speak fluently, then I use ma uka and ma kai, or i uka and i kai, or ā uka and ā kai, as appropriate in a given context. But I don't use those expressions when I speak English, which is my first language. The mere usage of four directional expressions, by a subset of people (who are probably trying too hard to show that they are "local"), is not very significant, and is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article on a "dialect". A dialect is characterized by speech behavior which is automatic and generally beyond the conscious control of the speaker, as opposed to optional, conscious selections of lexical items and expressions. Agent X 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You call The Constitution of the State of Hawaii a "weird tangent". Yes. Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, no matter how much you scream, shout, and jump up and down. What the Constitution of the State of Hawaii -- or the constitution of any state -- has to to do with the recognition of a dialect is, well, nothing whatsoever.

Every single citation that's in the article now was put in by me. Some advice: if you're going to write something untrue, try not to do so with things that are easily checked. Makes it easy to catch you, don't you know.

A dialect is characterized by speech behavior which is automatic... You have a source for this definition, other than your nether regions? And how, exactly, does it apply here? --Calton | Talk 00:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawaiian Pidgin, as the sources seem not to confirm any of the statements. It's a plausible redirect, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disambiguation page can help. The 3 expressions "Hawaiian Pidgin (English)", "Hawaiian Creole English", and "Hawaiian English", can be easily confused by people who have not previously considered technical linguistic terminology such as "pidgin" (not originally a first language for anyone), versus "creole" (a pidgin which has become a first language for at least some people), versus a U.S.-State-reckoned geographical variety of English ("Hawaii English", "Oregon English", "Arizona English", etc.). I would not be surprised if some publications have used the phrase "Hawaiian English" to mean the same thing as "Hawaiian Creole English" or "Hawaiian Pidgin", rather than to mean "the first-language English of people raised in the U.S. State of Hawaii, which is not creole (nor pidgin)". Perhaps there could be an article titled something like "English in Hawaii". Such an article could point out the simultaneous co-existence of many different Englishes in Hawaii, along with many other languages, and discuss the influences of those languages on "Englishes spoken in Hawaii". Since Hawaii has tourists from all 50 U.S. states, off-and-on all year long, every year, every different State-reckoned English is constantly being spoken in Hawaii. We also have Japanese-accented English, Filipino-accented English, Thai-accented English, etc., etc. However, supporting published sources may be lacking for such an article. Perhaps the only one of the different "Englishes of Hawaii" that has enough published discussion to support an encyclopedia article is the pidgin/creole. If redirect means that the current "Hawaiian English" stub/article will be eliminated, then that's okay with me. Agent X 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fernandez (comics)[edit]

Article is about an unbelievably minor character who appears in a handful of panels in two comics: dying in one, and a flashback to his death (one among 800) in another. The character is a footnote, and this article will never expand because there is no way to expand it. Chris Griswold 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete Simply absurd. --InShaneee 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete There is no defence for this article's existence MarkSutton 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Nora Claypoole[edit]

Not Notable, also WP:AUTO. A freelance journalist with a fairly obscure book, a completely obscure novel, and poetry and prose appearing in various odd places. She wrote the article herself. --Brianyoumans 08:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one of her books (Who Would Unbraid Her Hair) shows up on amazon.com; it has a sales rank of 1,705,242 and is published by a quite obscure publisher (not found on Google). It appears to fail WP:BOOK (which I don't entirely agree with, but... there you go). The book is, however, on a subject currently considered notable (Anna Mae Aquash). On the other hand, the article is an autobiography, and she herself appears to fail WP:BIO. She's an interesting subject, but sadly, unencyclopedic. --FreelanceWizard 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I suppose blogspot.com links aren't very notable or suitable for a Wikipedia article, and a jounralist/author would generally have a little more definite content to it but the article seems genuine enough. I would err toward neutral as I don't quite like the general feel of the article but aren't in favour of keeping it either. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"DELETE"Absolutely a "must" for deletion, under the this policy: "Articles whose deletion should be uncontroversial but which don't meet the "utter rubbish" criteria for speedy deletion. This is often used for articles which appear to have genuine content but which the deleter feels are not suitable content for Wikipedia, such as advertising, vanity articles, and the like." Claypoole, across the web, has amply demonstrated that this entry falls into the "advertising" and "vanity" category. She is an entirely self-promoted "writer" of dubious talent and integrity. Long a thorn in the side of Indian Country, she persists in presenting herself as an expert on complex Native American issues and then waxing mystical about life and death issues. She has savaged the tragedy of the death of Anna Mae Aquash, even in the title of her self-financed (other than that paid for by Jordan Dill, another self-promoter) book _Who Would Unbraid Her Hair_. Claypoole, who is not Indian, apparently channels the occult notion that Aquash's hands were cut off so that her spirit could not have rest, as then her warrior braid couldn't be properly dealt with. In reality, the hands were cut off for another reason--not that you'll find facts in her writings. She is simply another Indian hanger-on with dubious credentials, mostly drummed up by her own self-promotion. Now she's into using her publicity to create customers for writers' retreats. **If you'd like to learn about her, visit the Google Groups alt.native Just a quick Google search turned up enough Claypoole blogs and various websites to support the contention of this article being "advertising" and "vanity."

==***Here is an alt.native post from Claypoole herself acknowledging that her book was published by Jordan Dill, a website operator: "From antoinette - Date: Sat, Dec 16 2000 5:14 am .... as some of you know, the work i wrote which was published by jordan s. dill, WHO WOULD UNBRAID HER HAIR, the legend of annie mae, ... " Other than her backer Jordan Dill's website, all of Claypoole's promotions appear on her own blogs and websites. Wikipedia doesn't need to be one of them.--Ardith010 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Ardith010[reply]

Delete Who Would Unbraid Her Hair was originally published by Anam Cara Press/Jordan S. Dill. Dill seems to be primarily s self-publisher. Other book is fromWild Embers which seems to be Claypoole herself [http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/3/prweb213688.htm. Very few Ghits, and those primarily to blogs. Dlyons493 Talk 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VAIN --Mitaphane _talk 00:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athlon 64. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMD Athlon FX-60[edit]

advertisment of AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 CPU AMD64 08:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [19]. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 09:29Z

Merge and Redirect per above. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Crustacean. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but not per above. Unable to redirect to sections. Viridae ^Talk 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — ~~with List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors~~ per Consumed Custacean --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that article is a very brief review of the different lines of Athlon 64s. AMD K8 has more specific information on K8s in particular. It also has all the information that's present in this article, so there's nothing really to merge. Shame about the lack of section redirects :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — per above. As was already said, we can't redirect in sections (sorry). alphaChimp ^laudare 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — Reedy Boy 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenalyn[edit]

Not notable. I show only the Wikipedia article on Google when searching for Adrenalyn. Also the Canyon Pro Wrestling that is referenced in the article shows up only twice on google...once as wikipedia article Adrenalyn and once in a copy of the same article. rhmoore 08:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 09:27Z

Delete WP:NN. I'm temped to say WP:VSCA, but I'm not sure. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable biography (if we can even call it that.) alphaChimp ^laudare 14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per all of the above --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Marble[edit]

Not Notable. Google shows the National Stonewall Democrats webpage as the only one relevant to this person. rhmoore 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's a mid-level executive at a NPO without any other claim to fame. - Thorne N. Melcher 09:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, merge tag added. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serials Solutions[edit]

This is a very curious article. Google is unhelpful because it counts as unique a vast number of different links on the company's own website. ProQuest is significant, but I am not sure that individual ProQuest acquisitions / business units are. Just zis Guy you know? 09:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to ProQuest. Lots of Google hits for "serials solutions" -site:serialssolutions.com. Referenced and popular enough to have a parody site. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 09:26Z

Merge to ProQuest or delete. Dlyons493 Talk 11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the results of Quarl's -site:serialssolutions.com Google search. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is spam. --Xrblsnggt 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ProQuest per above, this division dosn't need it's own article. --Wine Guy Talk 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Second-Hand Originals[edit]

Not Notable. Google returns only 9 hits, which include Wikipedia and MySpace. rhmoore 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable band. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 09:22Z

Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Relatively well known in Southern Sydney"? Fails WP:MUSIC. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no proof that it's well known. --Sbluen 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylorn[edit]

Seems to be a commercial Advert. Google has only 10 hits, one is the company itself, two are Wikipedia, and the rest are from forums. rhmoore 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not. It's my page. It's hardly a company, either, it's a free game. And it's in development. I'm sorry if it sounds like an advert, I can see to it that I edit it around to remove anything that tries to.. advertise and make it a little more formal. It's very hard to do this, though, when the game isn't done, and you're just looking for forum members.
Commercial Advert? No. It doesn't make money so it's not commercial and it's not an advert. I can't find many other ways to word an unfinished game. Lassaris 09:05, 6 August 2006 (GMT+10)

Delete, MMORPG that's not even in beta stage yet. NawlinWiki 12:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even in beta stage yet? We haven't even reached alpha. With all due respect to the game & site's founder, I doubt it will be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia even after the game is finished. With that said, I wish him and his development team the best of luck. -- Kicking222 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this game in particular is notable is because the developers are trying to keep away from many of the things that have been done in other MMORPGs... If this particular page is an advert, please edit as much as you want to draw it away from that, we are simply stating the facts... If this is deleted, why not delete the World of Warcraft entry? This was intended to be similar to that... Thellis 12:10, 7 August 2006 (GMT+10)
This game will be great as the team are fansastic to work with and we have members from all over the globe. Every thing has to start someware and suggestions on how to improve are better than deletion as we are 100% dedicated to making this happen. Yes at the mo we are bulding the game from using the forum as we want input from players and to expand our current vision to the best of the best and we are only in the first stages of work. We have lots of stuff in development from paper based design to be modled to in depth storys for quests. Why delete some thing that isnt finished?? Kainin 12:31, 10 August 2006 (GMT+0)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. - Bobet 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking[edit]

First, please see the original VfD from 2004. That closed as no consensus, largely because of repeated claims that "This is not an article. It is an unfinished scrap of writing. It is on a legitimate topic, but has not been written yet." In short, two years ago, there was a claim that this was not just a piece of wikimeta and that it would grow into an article that would meet Wikipedia's expectations.
It hasn't done that. It it uncited. It sets arbitrary characterizations and "rule[s] of thumb" that fail WP:NPOV at best. And, two years later, it is still entirely self-referential. Furthermore, there are no links to this entry from the mainspace. It is being referenced entirely from talk and userpages as a surrogate for WP:CONTEXT. Serpent's Choice 09:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this version of the article due to the NPOV-ness inherent. I'm not a computer/internet type (beyond using one to access the other), but if it's a real thing then it probably deserves an article on it. Such an article shouldn't, however, be prescriptive and certainly not to the extent that this one is. BigHaz 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NPOVcruft. The 'article' has had plenty of time to grow. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probobly better on meta or meatball. Viridae ^Talk 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Allwiki" is already mentioned in Wikipedia:Build the web; and a lot of this article is a straight copy of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), hence the prescription. Uncle G 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I cite the article weasel word as an example; The term is important, linked mostly from talk pages, and has only one reference. A search on google for "overlinking" can get me one legit reference. Furthermore, I've cleaned up the article so that isn't self-referential (save for one link to the manual of style). --Mitaphane _talk 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overlinking certainly exists outside of Wikipedia (for another discussion of the concept, see this article by John C. Dvorak). It seems like a legitimate topic to me - just give it some more time to grow. Two years isn't that long, especially when Wikipedians are busy with a million+ other things. Zagalejo 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dict def, neologism, and inherently POV. -- Koffieyahoo 06:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mitaphane and hope it grows. While not a major phenomenon, it has merited an editorial by a known, respected writer. I consider it a piece of Internet grammar/style which has consequences outside the scope of a Wikipedia manual of style. That said, a link to an overlinked web article outside of a wiki would be helpful. --Newt ΨΦ 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. No good reason to justify its deletion. Sparsefarce 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found it to be interesting, and I feel expansion is probable. --Chris Griswold 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently sourced and, well, not to get all Wikipedia-God-King-arrogant here, but if that generic an internet-related term were in general use, I'd have seen it before. Ahem. Sandstein 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've seen it called another of things (including there are too bleepin' many links in the page), but I can't recall seeing "overlinking" before. (Two weeks is long enough once the editors are notified that there's a problem. Two years is much too long.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Important style guideline -- Writtenonsand 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt a wikipedia style guideline, and even if it was it wouldn't belong in the article namespace. ( I believe there is a short page on this in the WP namespace somewhere, but I can't remember what its called. Viridae ^Talk 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That WP namespace page is the WP:CONTEXT I mentioned in the listing. I'll admit, it took me forever to find, as the shortcut is not intuitive. Serpent's Choice 08:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a universal phrasebook, and there is nothing asserted in the way of notability that would overcome the inherent problems of POV definition. "Overcooking" is also a legitimate topic, in common usage, surely has been addressed by known, respected writers, but is still not in need of a separate encyclopedic entry, no matter how many burnt roasts one encounters. - David Oberst 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half-serious comment: We do have an article on overeating... :) Zagalejo 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to consider the term notable once the concept of binge-linking becomes widely discussed, and Overlinkers Anonymous is formed... :) - David Oberst 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The article needs to be developed more. Overlinking is a serious problem at times, when certain editors with obsessive tendencies ruin good articles using this practice. An article should only contain relevant hyperlinks. There is no good reason for deleting the article. If someone doesn't like it, they can ignore it. It may be important for others who don't have obsessive compulsive tendencies. -- Fyslee 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - we already have a page on it in the WP namespace. It belongs on meta or meatball. Viridae ^Talk 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specialities of France[edit]

Basically a list without the name, suffers from typical list issues. Minimal to no criteria for inclusion, no independant verification, no cited secondary sources for most of the page's content. Note on page strongly suggests this is original research. Serpent's Choice 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as litcruft. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not be adverse to a list of foodstuffs covered by Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée however. Viridae ^Talk 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As something to note, that already exists. The main Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée article includes links to three lists, for wines, liqueurs, and most germane to this AfD, cheeses granted AOC status. So, in addition to my previous objections, the article under discussion is redundant. Serpent's Choice 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per formulated title, this list should include not only products with AOC, such as cheese and wines, but also local specialties such as Castelnaudary Cassoult, piment d'Espelette, Perigord foie gras and confit... it needs not be redundant at all --Svartalf 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem then goes back to the lack of verifiable criteria for inclusion. What standard needs to be set to determine if a product is a local specialty? And how local do these specialties need to be? Would a cheese qualify if its production was unique to a commune? To a département? To a région? And once we try to expand this to any sort of recipe, worse problems arise. Without verifiable listing requirements, this is an invitation for everyone with a French grandmother to grant "local specialty" status to their favorite family recipe. Of course, if some appropriately-documented criteria for inclusion can be found, that would assuage many of my concerns. Serpent's Choice 04:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So it's a list, so it needs to be improved and expanded so it will be if not deleted. --Svartalf 02:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as bad OR. Emmental, a speciality of France? Ha. Sandstein 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Neville[edit]

Deprodded without comment or improvement to address the concern raised in the prod. The article has been tagged for a month as being of questionable notability; indeed the guidelines at WP:PROF seem not to be met. Delete. User:Angr 10:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to know something about Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Kappa 10:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the previous version of the article adequately demonstrated notability, but I added some stuff which should help. A department chair at a long-established university is usually notable, not by virtue of being chair, but because one normally has to be a pretty good scholar to be made chair. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two books and a number of articles on Google Scholar (although I suspect Effects of cold shock on the distribution of leucocytes in goldfish, Carassius auratus isn't really her) Dlyons493 Talk 11:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugi[edit]

There is no indication that this electronic publication is or was in any way notable. Requests to provide sources for this magazine's claim to notability were ignored. Sandstein 10:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The magazine caters to the "demoscene," by its nature a fairly insular community, and a community notable for other reasons than its numbers. An electronic zine pointed toward an audience that likes to create graphics programs in assembler code, that stays in publication for 10 years/32 issues is "notable" to me. Others may differ. Google hits for 'hugi diskmag' are about 15k, not huge, but, sampling a few of the hits, the publication seems to be well-regarded. Very nice website, too. Bustter 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. (If a 'zine wants to be notable, why does it label itself as "underground"? You can't be both.) --Xrblsnggt 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article does need improvement, I strongly disagree with the suggested unnotability of the publication. Hugi is an "underground diskmag", yes, because it concentrates around the demoscene, an "underground subculture", however, Hugi happens to be one of the most notable demoscene zines. For example, when sorting the diskmag issues indexed at pouet.net by "popularity", the top 20 list contains eight issues of Hugi. --Viznut 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, I didn't suggest it is not notable. I just said that the authors of the article don't (now) even assert, let alone provide any reliable source to indicate that it is notable. And I'm not convinced that the above hitcounter of one scene website meets WP:RS. Sandstein 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my suggestions for expansion on the Talk:Hugi page. I'm not voting yet, but if it's improved, I may vote keep. --Vossanova ^o< 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded. (I'm not sure the demoscene is sufficiently notable that — even the best — magazine in that genre is necessarily notable for that reason alone.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk)
Comment: There is a good bunch of demoscene-related articles in Wikipedia. This bunch includes, for example, 74 articles on demo groups and even a dozen articles on well-known demos. IMHO, if even half of these are actually notable enough for Wikipedia for their demoscene merit alone, then there's definitely room for some of the major diskmags as well. --Viznut 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ducklet DeskPhoto[edit]

Non-notable software product; 4 Google hits. --Haakon 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain — , since I'm the author. Hello wikipeople, it's me, the author of the Ducklet DeskPhoto article. Thank you for the spanking. I will be honest, open, calm, and reasonable in this discussion.

I'm new here (well, new to Wikipedia--not to the planet), so I didn't know all the rules. Common sense gave me some inkling of what the rules probably were, but I knew that wasn't enough so I did a fair amount of due diligence before posting the article in question. I read about posting policies, etc. for more than an hour before and during the writing of the post.
I learned many important rules and guidelines while doing this research, and ran across a number of examples that helped my education as well. Among them were:

Stick to the facts. I tried to do that.

I noticed there are many articles on software programs, so I gathered that an article about a software program was (at least in some cases) appropriate. From these I found the Infobox_Software template (and learned all about templates in the process, whee!).

As hard as I tried to find guidelines on posting about specific types of content, I was unable to find anything specific to software projects. Thanks, Haakon, for using the wording "non-notable software project" in your nomination for deletion--that helped me find the proposed Wikipedia policy on Software Notability. The proposal seems reasonable so I won't dispute it here, even though it's only a proposal, not adopted. (Besides, this wouldn't be the place to dispute it anyway.)

Be bold. I saw this recommendation many times. I like the spirit of this recommendation--pull lurkers out of the woodwork to have more people contributing. Nice.

It was in the spirit of be bold that I finally decided to go ahead and post my article even though I still wasn't sure if it was appropriate. If it wasn't, someone would point that out to me. (As you have done.)
Oh well. Live and learn. I said I would be honest: I will honestly admit that my goal was to do a bit of PR and generate interest in the software. I can also honestly state that I tried my best to do so in a professional manner and tried hard to follow all the rules of Wikipedia that I knew about, and even to follow the spirit of Wikipedia since, being so new, I couldn't possibly know all the rules. My attempt to follow the spirit shows, I hope, in the tone of the article (facts, not hyperbole or opinion) and in the similarity it bears to Wikipedia articles about other software programs.
By the way, I'm not sure how you got only 4 hits on Google, Haakon. Just a a factual point, when I search for ducklet deskphoto or +ducklet +deskphoto or "ducklet deskphoto" I get 16-17 hits. I'm not disputing that it's not notable--it's not like I get 13 million hits or anything--but it's also not 4. :-)
Thanks for reading all this.
President and Chief Executive Quacker, Ducklet BMorearty 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the message (not at all long and boring) and I hope we haven't been too curt about your article. A lot of real rubbish appears on AfD and we're all volunteers without a lot of time, so sometimes articles get fairly short shrift. We appreciate the spirt in which you've taken the comments and look forward your next! Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMN Triangle[edit]

Google "LMN Triangle Miami" came up empty. Unsourced and possibly OR article reads like an attempt to bolster Miami's image by comparing it to LA and NYC. SwissCelt 11:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article states that the phrase is: "not widely used in everyday conversation." This looks a lot like WP:OR. Even if this phrase exists, I don't think it's notable. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I work in the advertising industry in Chicago. This phrase is used in our office, though not heavily. Los Angeles-Miami-New York City are the three markets that are considered "benchmarks" in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.241.160 (talk • contribs) - IP's first edit. May be the article's main contributor. Th ε Halo ^Θ 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find ANY reliable references -- hell, any references whatsover -- for this phrase. If advertising professionals are using it, they're doing it secretly. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, therefore non-notable. -Will Beback 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a Google search of "LMN Triangle", Miami gives only two results, both on Wikipedia. It looks like OR and is certainly non-notable. Ufwuct 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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., WP is not a crystal ball --Madchester 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Impossible IV[edit]

Rumours, indicate, has been said, considered? The MI films are successful and there will probably be another film but the same can be said about Scary Movie 5 and Final Destination 4 Pally01 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invincible Ninja (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 August 2006
Comment: New votes on the bottom, please. Morgan Wick 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the film is confirmed, recreate article. Until then, this shouldn't be here. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Halo. Confusing Manifestation 12:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speculative. Ohconfucius 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search on IMDb yields no hits, meaning that the movie isn't even tenatively announced or planned. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per everyone else. Morgan Wick 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've seen many 'future films' with good citation, (i watch and help on a few, in fact) but this one lacks any citation or sourcing at all.ThuranX 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author has been creating several articles concerning fake sequels to Will Smith movies. --Merope 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shouldn't get people's hopes up until there's word from a reputable source… preferably Cruise himself.Johann Schlinker 23:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dude[edit]

No evidence that this is a particularly notable DOS game, the developer FormGen is a redlink and no publisher is given. the wub "?!" 12:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not convinced of notablity. There must be a donzen games like this out there. I can't find what makes this one special enough to warrent its own article. If anyone can asset notibilty, I'm wiling to change my vote. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to its notability by association. From its Moby page[20], I realized that both its publisher and developer are notable. FormGen is a redlink, unfortunately, but it surely deserves a page, since it published some Wolfenstein 3D and Commander Keen games - along with Apogee, they popularized shareware gaming. I believe they eventually merged with the GT Interactive. Evryware (also redlinked) is semi-notable, for doing a series of games named "The Ancient Art of War" for Broderbund, but that was back in the early 80s, as well as the Manhunter games for Sierra. --SevereTireDamage 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Easyas12c 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though basically a simple kids' game, this did get a wide release as a boxed version in stores. I remember seeing it in Electronics Boutique long ago. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

105 North Tower[edit]

A detail from A Tale of Two Cities, which doesn't seem important enough either to have its own article or to be merged into the article on the book. NawlinWiki 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Tale of Two Cities for the reasons given in the nom. Viridae ^Talk 13:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Nobody is ever going to be searching for this on Wikipedia. Google gives 53 hits. It's not notable, and I don't think it's worth a redirect. alphaChimp ^laudare 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. & alphaChimp --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Chris Griswold 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By itself? I'm surprised anyone bothered to create it in the first place... LactoseTI 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Freedom League[edit]

This bears all the hallmarks of vanispamcruftisdement. See how many times you find User:Sam Sloan's name in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as WP:VSCA. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article was started by banned user Amorrow using the sock pinktulip. [21]. Only one other editors (Sloan) has made significant content edits. FloNight ^talk 13:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definately vanity, but I am not conveinced either way wether it is notable. Google doesn't bring up a huge amount of results, but that may not mean much. 13:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (apparently I forgot to sign this: so Viridae ^Talk 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep I'm 57 years old, was somewhat involved in counter-culture movements (like everybody else was) in 1966 forward, and the Sexual Freedom League was pretty well-known 'back in the day.' I found the article as it is enlightening, no doubt it could be improved. Margo St. James was also known as "the Realist nun," something to do with a prank performed with the assistance of The Realist's editor Paul Krassner. The SFL may indeed have existed on the "fringe" of notability, but in the mid-sixties many things later subsumed to the mainstream -- all of the 'counter-culture' that came into its own by 1970 -- was 'non-notable.' SFL did, if my memory may be trusted, score frequent mention in Krassner's (now) well-respected publication (I was an avid reader). 40 years after its peak, 500+ hits in Google does not seem shabby. Lack of contributors is easily explained -- many lifetyle casualties in that era. Records like this are rare and historically valuable, though difficult to source. Sam Sloan lived in a time of historical nexus, characterized by conflicts of old and new, something similar was portrayed in Milos Forman's The People vs. Larry Flynt. I don't think the occurence of his name is a problem. Bustter 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addendum- Morgan Wick: Not a sock, and will provide my address and phone if you like. Sloan and SLF founder J. Poland did put out a book, referenced in the article, its out of print. Calton - Archives of the SLF are curated here: [[22]] To everyone interested, its funny how much of the fringe culture stuff just slips away from us. "The Realist Nun" was a well-known prank of its time, in my circle, anyway -- zero hits in Google, but Google groups offers three hits, ranging from 1995 to one a couple of weeks ago. Bustter 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bustter - Paulus89 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral.~~ Keep, per emerging consensus. Lack of G-hits is my main concern, and I still have some doubt as to whether Bustter and/or Sam Sloan may be socks, but am still assuming good faith for now. If it's as notable as Bustter claims, it may warrant an article, but how much content can it retain while remaining verifiable? Maybe Sam Sloan or others could write a book about this and others like it that can then be cited as a source in an NPOV article. Could someone track down "Krassner's (now) well-respected publication"? Morgan Wick 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Realist is a recently-created stub, but its editor-publisher Paul Krassner has been wiki'ed since 2003, there's more info about The Realist there. Though the last issue was in 2001, Krassner stopped putting it out regularly in 1967, when he discovered LSD. Or you can try contacting Krassner through his [website], where you can also read about Robert Anton Wilson's recent trip to his deathbed (and back). Better hurry, because Wilson's Ebay auction is limited to 3 days. Bustter 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. At first reading, all the references seem genuine and plausible, even the obvious mistakes ("Sproul Hall" being the name of UC Berkeley's administrative building and an often-used campus shorthand for campus administrators). A fair number of hits in Google Books [23] and Google Scholar [24]. And WorldCat confirms the book reference The Records of the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League [25]: there's even a copy at the Bodleian Library in Oxford [26]. Verification or actual notability may or may not be a problem, but the group existed. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as verified by Calton. A search by me came up with a reference in the Nation dating from 1967. It was a shortlived organisation but was of some significance in the 1960s US counterculture. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a little bit of searching around proves enough evidence [27] for me that it exists, and even seems worthy of an article. Any minor slight doubts I might have are wiped away by simply assuming a little bit of good faith as everybody should do. Mathmo 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It is obviously not suitable as is but this is way premature for deciding to delete. The solution is normal wikipedia editing. Over time, I believe it will become usefu, encyclopedic material. I am dismayed at all the effort to delete that could be going into incremental improvements. If everyone here just improved one thing about the article, that would be so much better than all this casual thumbs up vs. thumbs down stuff. WAS 4.250 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

PPStream[edit]

This article contains no proofs of compliance with WP:WEB, delete. MaxSem 12:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notble and failing WP:WEB. Th ε Halo ^Θ 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 20:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blend corp[edit]

Apparent advertisement; would prod, but editor's recent history indicates it would probably be removed on sight. Term gets only 604 Ghits [28] and 0 hits at Gnews [29]. Does not appear to pass WP:CORP and/or WP:ORG, whichever is more relevant. Luna Santin 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom & failing WP:V --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --RMHED 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Actually, I get even fewer, 136 ghits. It's not notable and it fails WP:CORP, WP:ORG, and WP:V. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Maze[edit]

WP:HOAX :unsourced article; no unique hits for Google on "Allen Maze", "Allen Kerosene", "Maze Kerosene", no hits on Sony website for "Allen Maze"; WP:MUSIC for non-notable artist Ohconfucius 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — per nom. as failing WP:MUSIC at least, if not WP:HOAX --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a hoax. Failing that, per being not notable in WP:MUSIC. Th ε Halo ^Θ 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Likely WP:HOAX. He has 20 ghits. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic and Jewish Extremism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict[edit]

Offers little and what there is in the article is covered in more detail in other articles Nuttah68 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, attack page, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Weregerbil 14:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The Extremism page is relatively brief and could use some real-world examples. But unfortunately this page reads too much like an essay, and so WP:NOT. Perhaps the links could be of some use? — RJH (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.ThuranX 02:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the British Labour Party[edit]

Seems utterly pointless given the existence of categories. kingboyk 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Kingboyk. Listcruft, due to subject being covered with categories. Th ε Halo ^Θ 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for this. Andrew Levine 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Labour Party (UK) MPs which contains more useful context. Warofdreams talk 12:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: the Labour Party currently has, I think, about 200,000 members, so this list could become ginormous. Categories are a much better way of doing this, and inherently restrict the list to otherwise notable people. --BrownHairedGirl 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. fails WP:WEB, site was made in retaliation to WP rmv wikiality references. --Madchester 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality.com[edit]

See also Talk:Wikiality and Wikireality (AfD discussion)

Vanispamcolbertcruftisement for non-notable web site, no claim per WP:WEB, google finds no incoming links, no Alexa rank, no verifiable reliable sources cited. Deprodded. Weregerbil 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Erechtheus 15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SNOWball this please. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen Colbert. Attic Owl 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Attic Owl. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and leave no redirect. Andrew Levine 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the concept of this Wiki funny, but considering that this is the only google hit for "wikiality.com" and does not assert notability, no way it satisfies WP:WEB. I do not see how a redirect is necessary because the website is essentially just a fan site for Colbert himself.-- danntm ^T _C 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity for a non-notable website. Konman72 20:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete The site is still young and should be given more time, Also it is not really simply a Colbert fan site.Sultangris 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site has as much time as its owner is willing to pay xyr hosting company for. Giving the web site time has nothing to do with giving the web site an encyclopaedia article. Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be a good project, a sort of Uncyclopedia for The Colbert Report, but for now it isn't notable enough. Good luck to them, though. JDoorj a m Talk 09:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Belgium[edit]

Appears to be a review of a book by someone named "Charif". Is probably a copyvio (though google doesn't find the text), and also probably vanity (poster is User:Charif), and is most definitely a review, rather than an encyclopedic article. Staecker 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially gibberish. There isn't any context, much less a statement of why it is notable. Erechtheus 15:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:VSCA. Th ε Halo ^Θ 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book is Charif Benhelima. Uncle G 15:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that this is not found by googling is that this is a translation from Dutch; the original is here. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a book review forum. JIP | Talk 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per User:JIP, WP:VSCA and because the article does not encyclopedic.-- danntm ^T _C 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: you're all more than welcome to Belgium, but this is not an encyclopedic article, and the book doesn't deserve one either (despite the preface/blurb/whatever by Luc Tuymans, who I like) Fram 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hector preston[edit]

WP:BIO Subject not notable. Sixth-former at King Edward Grammar school, 30 Google hits, of which aboout 3 unique, but all related to the school. Anthony Tuckwell, author of the cited source appears to have been headmaster of the school Ohconfucius 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Erechtheus 14:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non notabe, WP:BIO. Th ε Halo ^Θ 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. No relevant GHits outside Wiki, and the cited source is six years old, so this kid would have been twelve and not even in the school when it was written. Schoolboy vanity. Fan-1967 16:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tupac Shakur. Mango juice^talk 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euphanasia[edit]

This non-notable company (fails WP:CORP) article appears to exist simply to rehash the details of its founder's death. The contents are represented acceptably in his biography. Erechtheus 14:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tupac Shakur. Its founder's fame alone might be enough for notability if there were anything to say about it, but there doesn't seem to be. --Allen 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Euthanasia or Tupac Shakur. Oldelpaso 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The correct name is not Euthanasia. The article should be kept and added to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by License2Kill (talk • contribs) .
Comment. Expand with what? If you know of something to add, the time to do so would be now. Erechtheus 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This keep vote was from User:License2Kill, the article's creator. Oldelpaso's point was that it could be a valid search term for someone searching for Euthanasia. Right now, you haven't made any assertion that this is notable beyond its founder, or why this should be "kept and added to". Morgan Wick 02:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It should be kept and added to because it was a company started by a big figure and there could be more to add on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by License2Kill (talk • contribs) .

Redirect to Tupac Shakur per nom. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasterlouder.com.au[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of 274,713. Jacek Kendysz 15:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too bad we don't have a CSD for non-notable websites. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, I would hope not! This article asserts notability, so it would fall under no CSD. Morgan Wick 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:WEB per nom. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Thompson[edit]

This person does not meet the notability criteria in WP:BIO Rangek 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "currently a substitute teacher and a cheerleading coach"? WP:NN. Th ε Halo ^Θ 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. --TheM62Manchester 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Halo. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 16:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom & being unverified and somewhat fancrufty --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable--Pathlessdesert 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I deprodded the article because she's done more than just Flavor of Love, given the other game show appearances she's done. However, I concede that her fifteen minutes are up, and even if she's appeared in a notable TV show, she probably isn't noteworthy herself. Sorry, no clock from Wikipedia for you, Brooke. :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (although I'll be sad to see some of that prose go) Yomangani 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, all the information needed is already in the FOL article. Ckessler 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic epistemology[edit]

A google search turns up very little on "forensic epistemology" other than WP mirror sites. The concept was apparently introduced in an unpublished doctoral thesis. The references provided do not substantially relate to the topic. Citation of peer-reviewed publications which discuss forensic epistemology would probably be sufficient to establish notability. Nesbit 16:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; looks like original research. --Allen 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Agree that it looks like original research, but it seems it might be improved to overcome that problem. Legal epistemology belongs at evidence (law), which could stand expansion. Still, I look forward to the day when an epistemologist testifies as an expert witness in a trial. Smerdis of Tlön 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless such publications are provided, this is either a non-notable, or unverifiable topic. If no one else can be bothered to write about it, why should we?--Crossmr 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete OR essay Pete.Hurd 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal Fridge Dialogue[edit]

This same information appears on the V.F.D. Codes page. Its redundant and this article will never amount to more than a stub Clamster5 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to V.F.D. Codes page; reasonable search term. --Allen 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to V.F.D. Codes. In fact, you can be bold and make these sorts of articles into redirects when you encounter them, bypassing AfD entirely. Morgan Wick 02:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRL Video Stats for Kelly Clarkson[edit]

TRL statistics aren't notable outside of discussion of singles' music videos (which should be on the song articles), and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Extraordinary Machine 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine having the info collected together being useful to someone, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. So merge with Kelly Clarkson if the people who watch that article think it should be there, otherwise delete. --Allen 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely not notable enough to deserve its own article. If merged, it should be merged to Kelly Clarkson discography. --musicpvm 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - quite indiscriminate. Wickethewok 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article of single, or Kelly Clarkson discography, or if all else fails, Delete. TRL stats for a specfic artist are not important enough to deserve it's own article.-- danntm ^T _C 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, indiscriminate collection of information. If these people think this is interesting info for Kelly Clarkson they can add it to that article, I'm not going to endorse one way or another. Morgan Wick 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft up the wazooo. 205.157.110.11 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already full info of Kelly Clarkson's TRL runs on http://www.absolutetrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35291

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Films Quarterly[edit]

Blatant advertising page for self-published/print-on-demand fan magazine. No credible assertations on notability in the article. Google search on "Fan Films Quarterly" brings back 120 returns, only 28 unique. Article creator Nobleverse appears to be the publisher David Noble. Previously listed for speedy deletion, tag removed by Nobleverse. Delete MikeWazowski 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was holding out for a bit on this one because the author said he could get sources for it and I completely forgot about it until now. Delete as a non-notable magazine. Metros232 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a puff piece --RMHED 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was not to be a puff piece, but rather a method to catalog the growing number of fan films online. --Nobleverse 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate such a catalog; Strong keep --89.57.52.84 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, MikeWazowski 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While some of these fan films may be notable, this magazine does not seem to be. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP already has an article on fan films and is not a directory (and is certainly not an advert for a magazine posing as a directory). Yomangani 22:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the magazine poses as a directory, but rather a source for current information on fan film projects. It is just a matter that, within Wikipedia, there is no more thorough listing of fan films under this forum. The closest may have 25-40, but we are surpassing 200 fan films listed, and are prepared to add another 70 in the near future. In addition to discussing over 200 fan films in its' publication history, the magazine also talks about related issues, to include financial distress, legal ramifications, potential future projects, and other real issues that fan film companies have faced.

I would also like to point out that, in Issue #3, we covered KISS and the potential for a fan film based on the 100+ tribute bands across the world. I think cholmes75 would have liked the article. Thanks, User: Nobleverse 12:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canadian Idol --Madchester 10:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs performed on Canadian Idol[edit]

This article seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a shot introduction, then is just a list. It may be better served if merged into the Canadian Idol article, or the articles on the individual performers, if they are worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Displaced Brit 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no different from List of songs performed on American Idol, etc. Kirjtc2 19:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated that one as well. Displaced Brit 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Kirjtc2. One article doesn't justify another, but this might be a legitimately interesting topic for some Wikipedia readers. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this nomination and the one for American Idol should be voted on together, IMHO. This list is interesting and useful. It's not really original research, since all the raw data is easily verifiable and no conclusions have been drawn. - Richardcavell 05:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure fan trivia; are we going to have List of songs performed on Top of the Pops, List of songs performed on American Bandstand, List of songs performed on The Lawrence Welk Show, List of songs perfomed on Name That Tune? I hope not. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanspark[edit]

Article for non-notable project, probably vanity. Very little context, no references and no assertion of notability. Only four unique GHits for "meanspark". Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shimeru 18:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is vanity/advertising (images uploaded as pd-self then changed to no copyright info, so they will be deleted anyway) Yomangani 22:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Marloboro Soccer Club[edit]

This club appears not to meet WP:V. Searches for information on a club named Grand Marloboro or Grand Marlboro turn up nothing. Oldelpaso 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also article is barely comprehensible. NawlinWiki 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the Google test and appears to be lacking any verifiable notability. -- Alias Flood 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1. There's hardly anything here, and what is there borders on patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 01:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minfo 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kimchi.sg 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Governors by name:B[edit]

The start of another superflous list, this subject is more than adequately covered by categories. Also these other related pages;

List of United States Governors by name:G

List of United States Governors by name:M

List of United States Governors by name:P

RMHED 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Yomangani 22:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Viridae ^Talk 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. JYolkowski // talk 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names given to the divine[edit]

Is redundant of information at Names of God. Also, quality of the article and detail is inferior to Names of God. Merge has been proposed since May, and I've inserted everything into Names of God that was worth including. In addition, more editors contribute to Names of God. -- Wikipedical 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect. -- Wikipedical 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've merged content from this article to Names of God, we need to keep this as a redirect for GFDL compliance, or if the result is to delete, the closing admin needs to perform a page history merge. JYolkowski // talk 19:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Names of God per above. Other editors may want to double-check that the merge has been thoroughly completed as necessary before so doing. (Not to say Wikipedical's work wasn't well done, and kudos to him for doing the dirty work; it's just good to be on the safe side.) -- H·G (^words/_works) 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G4 The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thenomo[edit]

Article contains made-up/fictional information presented as fact. Article was previously deleted by speedy process but recreated by the original author FelineAvenger 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Richhoncho 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (may qualify for Speedy under G4 if the recreated material is substantially the same). Yomangani 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article has also perpetrated other hoaxes throughout Wikipedia. This should have just been prod'ded. Danny Lilithborne 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly speedily, per Yomangani. If not speedy, coulda been prodded. I have tagged it as a hoax. Morgan Wick 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango 123 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glass the Land[edit]

Page contains made-up or fictional material presented as fact FelineAvenger 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, I previously had nominated related article Thenomo for speedly deletion, and the article was recreated by the original contributor User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. I am therefore nominating both that article and this one throught the more involved afd process. FelineAvenger 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (WP:NFT). Yomangani 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete everything having to do with this guy reeks of hoax. Danny Lilithborne 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not quite patent nonsense, but pretty close. I have speedied Thenomo as it falls under WP:CSD. --ColourBurst 07:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-Tegrity[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable company fails WP:CORP, despite the creator's undoubtedly sincere protestations otherwise. Includes nice big link to the company's homepage. The creator's only contribs relate to data security software, including edits to Password manager and Disk encryption software that helpfully point readers of these articles to the company's web page. I am also nominating these related pages for deletion:

N-Pass

N-Crypt

VoiceOfReason 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. The company did have a court case against Verizon dismissed, but thats about as notable as it gets. Yomangani 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Yomangani: The company did NEVER have a court against Verizon, neither against other company or institution. I will highly appreciate if your notes will be more reliable. Concerning "notability" - several government and public institutions in Israel and Europe has selected the company as a security services provider and its products as a solution of choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Cuprin (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 August 2006

I apologize, I thought perhaps this press release was saying they did was a reliable source [30] Yomangani 09:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
N'TEGRIRTY - Has had a court, however n-Tegrity is a product, developed by n-Trance security, which has nothing common with the abovementioned company --Eugene Cuprin 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize: I was misled by the nomination implying it was a company rather than a product (and by the complete lack of anthing but bullet points in the article). However, discounting this just means it is less notable, so my opinion stands. Yomangani 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CORP very carefully. I have, and I see three criteria, none of which is having been selected by several government and public institutions in Israel and Europe as a security services provider. VoiceOfReason 11:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to VoiceOfReason: Pointing of reader to the company's web page was removed. Both n-Pass and n-Crypt are outstanding software applications that include multiple unparallel features. Their only fault was to be developed by "non-notable" company. Let it be. So delete the company info and keep the software, which methodically belongs to Password manager and Disk encryption software sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Cuprin (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 August 2006

They may be outstanding, they may be unparalleled, but they are not notable by the standards specified in WP:SOFTWARE. Regarding "methodically": you keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). VoiceOfReason 11:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my lack of punctuality --Eugene Cuprin 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Typical self-interest editing pattern. JonHarder 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Please pay attention to the newly added links to independent reviews of the product and the company under the category "Reviews and external links" Northern

Where would they be? Yomangani 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of the three pass WP:SOFTWARE or even a Google test. Fairsing 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsc[edit]

Article, probably WP:SPAM, for sportswear business with no assertion of notability, and does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Could not even find them on Google (perhaps a very new-to-online business?), and EPSC sportswear returns just 31 unique GHits, none of which appear to be relevant. Also nominating:

Stylised 'e'

as a rather useless spinoff article of the above with no verified information ("allegedly", "claimed to have been") ~Matticus ^T_C 19:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Most of the reference links do not lead directly to information about the business, only to sites where you can find out what businesses are registered. One of these ([31]) states it is a "Small unquoted company filing only a modified balance sheet"; its own references prove it fails WP:CORP. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (both) under WP:CSD A7 - no matter how vague A7 is this qualifies. Yomangani 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per all above. NawlinWiki 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nomination. Ohconfucius 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mootstormfront[edit]

Note: this article was previously nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mootstormfront
Doesn't meet WP:WEB, and fails Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this that I can find. Alexa ranking of 1,696,653, only 83 unique google hits on mootstormfront, all of which are message board posts, blogs, wikipedia and its mirrors. This web forum has 167 members. The previous AfD result was Keep, based on nothing more than various statements that "this group is well known", which doesn't help with Wikipedia:Verifiability at all Xyzzyplugh 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:WEB, and a forum with 74 "active" members, it says. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS and hence WP:OR (and WP:WEB) - Yomangani 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Gramaic | Talk 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? --Xyzzyplugh 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, Mootstormfront does not have many strong sources. But, this web forum is famous among racists, and non-racists. Mootstormfront is known for being Stormfront's anti-racist opposite. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"not many strong sources" actually means zero strong sources in this case. And, from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research". We do not have articles on "famous" things which are unverifiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability is "non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus". --Xyzzyplugh 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an important website in its field. However, without 3rd party sources it is hard to establish its notability. -Will Beback 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing on Lexis or the ILL service for Missouri's academic libraries (perhaps a cooler state's...). There are only about 85 unique google hits for this, though I understand that google has trouble with unique hit counts when the total hits top 1,000. Many of those hits were negative rumblings from white-power websites, forums, and blogs, but none of those really count as reliable sources. A forum without media coverage and just 100 members just doesn't have the notability for more than a mention in the stormfront article, which is already there. Unless even a single source can be found, it should be deleted.--Kchase T 05:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Windsor Terrace Apartments[edit]

Not particularly notable apartment complex. Its biggest claim to fame is that it is tied for the second tallest building in Windsor, Ontario at 26 stories, which is very unimpressive. Solidarity Towers, with which it is tied, was deleted recently as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Delete as such. 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) nom was Wickethewok but forgot to sign

Delete 3 google hits on this from outside wikipedia. Non-notable, Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory --Xyzzyplugh 19:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers - Yomangani 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone[edit]

This article is about a "future product," the "iPhone." However, there is no evidence that Apple intends to release a telephone, or that such a telephone is even in development. Unlike products such as Microsoft's Zune, which the company has stated it intends to release, Apple has never made any statements regarding the production of a phone. This page is not at all encyclopedic, citing sources that are nothing more than rumors and speculation. Until there is something more than guesswork to back up the existence of such a product, this page should not exist. Delete Paulus89 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Reedy Boy 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there may also be trademark issues. See, for example, [32]. Stephen B Streater 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and also this [33] - Paulus89 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. - 68.32.34.152 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Federation[edit]

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Seems to be advertising. Peephole 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising; the author has also posted many links to his or her own gaming site on several different gaming-related articles (and even on some related to Star Wars), and at least one of his or her recently created articles is a {{db-repost}}. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As Above - WP is not for advertising Reedy Boy 20:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisment. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Yomangani 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Wars[edit]

Another suspected advertisement by the same user, suffering from the same problems as the above article. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Peephole 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Yomangani 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've seen this game before and indeed played it... don't think that it is Wikipedia material though. The main game Galactic Conquest might be, as it is quite a bit larger, but I doubt even that. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually been speedily deleted three times. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has an Alexa rank of 13,519 and claims over 650k accounts, though I highly suspect that they are counting every account ever made rather than active accounts (they delete accounts after about a month of inactivity). I've seen 500-1000 players on at once, maximum. Its notable, but IMO browser-based games have to stand up to a very high standard of notability to be recognized on Wikipedia. For example, Ogame has an article because it has over 2 million active players in Germany, and that was as of half a year ago. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nonnotable, article was never even a half decent stub --Svartalf 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepApologies in advance for the misformatting of this, i asked the owner of the game to try and save this being deleted. He has managed to compile some examples of local media coverage here http://www.gamestotal.com/corp/print/ as well as being listed in the dmoz. His english isnt that great and my internet skills arent either

As a note, the game was worthy enough for the above mentioned ogame.org to register and try and divert a domain towards they game at www.spacefe.com (The old domain was spacefed.com though it has been moved to gamestotal.com a year or so ago) Also noted should be the alexa ranking compared over a week for ogame and Gamestotal. Found for ogame.de here (Quoted as having 2 million players in germany) and the gamestotal domain here. If youll scroll down tot he numerical averages over time, Youll see the 1 week average is actually higher than ogame. Unfortunitly the next stage up it will goto the 3 month ave. BelialMkII 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I think that the article posted actually did not sound like advertising to me. When people advertise, they say "Play this game because it is so good." When people are factual they say "This game is based in Malaysia." It isn't advertising. Also there are tons of games posted on Wikipedia that aren't huge games. Also I think that it really can't hurt to have this page. This game is really cool and it is kind of underground. Well not really underground, but compared to the big games like runscape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.20.101 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to lack of independent sources and unproven notability. Kusma (討論) 12:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OverLooked ReMiX[edit]

Non-notable website with an Alexa rank of 1,176,984. This was previously prodded under a different article title and the prod removed, but the editors have been messing around with multiple versions of the articles at OL Remix, Overlooked remix, OverLooked Remix and Overlooked ReMiX, changing them back and forth between duplicate articles and redirects, and figuring out the various edit histories is turning my brain into a Rubik's cube. Anyway, nominated for procedural AfD for the same reasons in the prod (see edit history for Overlooked ReMiX). ~Matticus ^T_C 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right... that editor was me. And I apologize for giving you a headache, as I noticed that I misspelled the proper name for the website,and moved the article thussly. I would think in this case the impact of the website should not be judged based upon webiste hits, but in terms of the cultural impact on the Video Game Remix community. If you were to ask any of the people at OLR, or OverClocked Remix for that matter, they'd definitely say that OLR is notable.

Is there any way through overhauling the content of the page that it can be saved. I've read through the various policies, but they turn MY head into a Rubik's cube. What exactly can be done to save it

-- t3h real adam d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hrealadamd (talk • contribs)
Okay, welcome to the discussion, and it's good to see you being sensible about this (website and other internet-phenomenon-related AfDs can tend to degenerate into sockpuppetry and "zOMG but itz teh best siet evar, fewels!"). Wikipedia has established guidelines for what constitutes a notable website at WP:WEB. To sum it up briefly, for a website to be notable enough for an article it either has to have been written about in multiple non-trivial publications (i.e. not blogs or forums or such), or to have won a major independent web award, or they are a site that distributes their content through another well-known site independent of the creators. As it stands, OverLooked ReMiX does not appear to meet any of these criteria. The AfD process takes a week, so if in that time you can provide references that prove otherwise, then this strengthens the case for keeping the article. ~Matticus ^T_C 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR (although as usual I will change my opinion if notability can be established) Yomangani 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only just cause for this entry to be deleted is if there is a general "Video Game Remix/Community" entry which gives a section to each of the prominent websites that keep this community alive. OLRemix.org's page deserves to remain, as it is an important part of a real growing and thriving internet subculture. --Lord Ramco 21:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But does it meet WP:WEB? Nope. Delete. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this counts as a non-trivial source exactly but ThaSauce, a news website covering the video game remix community, has had several articles submitted, approved, and featured on the subject of OverLooked ReMix, a list of which is here. --Phanlax 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OverLooked ReMiX is a parody of the main site for video game remixing, OverClocked ReMix. That site is so popular that it has even spread to OLRemix.org and VGMix.com, all of which have different standards in remixing and whatnot. If OC ReMix is considered just and follows the WP:OR, then why doesn't OL ReMiX? A parody of a popular site is deserving of a spotlight, too. DJ15Nario 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While YES, many people see OverLooked Remix as a parody of OverClocked Remix, I'm bothered by this. Instead of being closely connected to the happenings of OCR, we ourselves have grown and flourished into a legitimate online community. We ARE NOT OCR, nor should we EVER BE OCR. Our remixes are of a different brand. Simply because they may not be made with the most expensive musical equipment, just because they aren't all hardcore techno/trance, just because our remixes are meant to be funny sometimes as compared to OCR's serious tone, we ARE STILL a valid community with many members. OverLooked Remix remixers may not be professionals, but we do care about what we do and we do work to better ourselves. The community of OverLooked Remix is our outlet. As stated before we are tracked on thasauce and many of the people from OverClocked Remix enjoy coming to our site to see what we have to offer. By having this wiki, it will help inform others of the site and possibly help inspire young budding remixers (who are valid musicians, just of a different type than popularly thought) to work on their dreams, and not be discouraged by the high 'standards' that OverClocked Remix has. The OverLooked community has been talking about finally getting a wiki for a long time, as we respect this site and the content it contains, and if we were to have this deleted it would be a major blow to our site's morale. This wiki IS VERY important for the community, as many of our members are really looking forward to both reading and contributing to the article. We would like to simply have the respect that the other 'big' remix site has. Please consider keeping the OverLooked Remix wikipedia article. --GregZor 03:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that olremix.org is a site worth documenting because, as the others before me have said, it is a thriving independant community. It doesn't get hitcounts quite as high as the other sites for the justifiable reason that it has been around for a fraction of the time (one and a half years versus six and a half for ocremix.org). However, for such a relatively new site it does impressively well, and gains popularity all the time. It is not premature to give olremix a spot on Wikipedia because it already posesses sufficient content and activity to warrant a reference for any and all curious about it. In addition, i think that olremix is also a stand-in for a whole genre of music which has been (forgive the pun) overlooked by other videogame remixing sites such as vgmix and ocremix. This genre is Home Music; independant, low-production amateur composition, rather than the professionalized mainstream rock/techno which is the exclusive domain of ocremix.org and its affiliates. If olremix.org is not represented, this whole subculture of the "gamer/musician hybrid" will be unrepresented. --The p00t 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above reasons. Wickethewok 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of you even READING what we're saying or are you just saying to delete this so you don't have to deal with it? --71.129.176.55 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How about reading WP:WEB and showing us where this site meets those qualifications? It is up to you to show that it notable as defined by WP:WEB; simply being a big online community and saying it represents a certain niche isn't enough. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:IAR? Think about it, by doing this you're prohibiting information on what will grow into a thriving internet community, thus (slightly I admit) lowering Wikipedia's quality. --Phanlax 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But by the same token, what about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? It's all very well saying it "will grow into a thriving internet community", that doesn't assert the notability now, which is what actually matters. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. -- Here it is right here. OverLooked Remix's content has been distributed via the website www.thasauce.net. This site is independant of OLR's creator. ThaSauce is also very well known among the remix community for the fine reporting it does on such remix sites such as OverClocked Remix, VGMix, AnimeRemix, and The Video Game Music Archive. Once again, let me stress that it IS independant of our admin/creator. Our content has also been distributed through several radio shows unaffiliated with OverLooked Remix such as "VGFrequency" AND "The Jump Button (WHFR FM)". I believe that our exposure on these mediums helps identify OverLooked Remix as a valid community AND helps the site be considered "Web-Specific Content".--GregZor 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase here is a site which is [...] well known.... ThaSauce.net's Alexa ranking is below 4 million, indicating it is anything but well-known. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems really stupid you know, you guys should be worrying more about the truth and neutrality of articles than whether or not one is "notable" enough. You're prohibiting information to be put on a website that is about giving information, when you should be helping correct information where it is not correct.--Phanlax 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally fail to see how an Alexa rating alone can substantiate a site as notable or not, especially since eon8 was receiving enough hits to cause intermittent server functioning, and its noteworthiness was debated. If a site as trivial as ilovebees.com gets its own, somewhat extensive page, and it too had a niche community involved with it, I don't see any reason why OLR shouldn't have its own article. True, the Halo series attracts quite a crowd, but then again, so does music. The media attention criterion is covered, though barely so, by www.thasauce.net, and whereas it's not CNN, it's popular among remix enthusiasts. We can thus conclude that OLR is, in fact, noteworthy within the remix community, which should be enough to satisfy your concerns. Keep. ~Tarrasque

Keep. I agree with Tarrasque. Just because the OLR page isn't popular doesn't mean that it deserves to be deleted. DJ15Nario 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Tarrasque. Oh, and everyone using the Alexa arguement, look here. This clearly states that the Alexa test itself is biased and requires software installation and MSIE for it to work and, not only that, it can easily be viewhacked. I don't know about you all, but I'm using Firefox and haven't even heard of Alexa except in my spyware logs while scanning with Ad-Aware. Hell, even simply Googling Alexa will turn up results on how their toolbar can be considered spyware and sites offering to "boost your Alexa ranking for free". Keep this, evidence against it is shaky at best, and based off of a dodgy dealer that uses spyware at the worst.Rainbringer 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to Media:keep this, but of course it's up to the Admins to decide. I just want to say that even those elitists in OCR sometimes give a tribute to OLR. it happened first with the Bound Together project by Joe Cam (which purpose was right actually to show how different websites can collaborate), and now with the Tim Follin project by Liontamer (who ISN'T some noob, but an important man on OCR, who also ran the radio show VGDJ and featured OL Remixes in VGDJ #69). link is here but I don't know Wikipedia tags so do it by yourself: [[34]] then again, I'm new to all this wikipedia policy thing, I just wanted to say my 0.02$ kthxbye (hey, how do I sign this?) -Nineko

Four Tildes. Rainbringer 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OL ReMix is absolutely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, in fact, (despite, perhaps, its best efforts) one of the premier game music remix sites on the 'net. This AfD is Wikisnobbery at its worst. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep, even though I am not fully aware of Wikipedia policy and even though the site is very, very, very weird, I think it's become big enough that it can't be ignored by a casual Video-game Remix seeking surfer. Plus, if Vgmix and OCR deserve their own pages I think this would at least be relevant enough to have a mention. Though, I think the article's language is in serious need of an over-haul, it definitely sounds like it was written by Adam D. TheHande 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well all I can say at this point is someone needs to actually go to the site and see for themselves just how developed the site is and how much it has to offer. I know you guys don't want just any website to have its own article, but look at how much we offer and how much the article has grown since it was put up for AfD. Phanlax 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suite life of zak and cody[edit]

The correct article is The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. This article doesn't add anything to the correct one and as such should not be merged but deleted, preferably as soon as possible. Nach0king 20:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected to The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. Go ahead and redirect it yourself next time. :) NawlinWiki 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David (Dave) Mitchell[edit]

Nonnotable actor/playwright; also listing plays ZOOZOOZOO and Vok the Butcher NawlinWiki 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. If this is also a nomination for the articles on his two works, consider my vote on them to be the same. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the IMDb link. Please take a look at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1180614/ to see if the films and other projects mentioned there changes your mind about this person. The movie Roofworld http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423090/ may be good when it is released (I read the book), but I realize that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's a "is a carbon-based lifeform" component I missed at WP:BIO. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. subject not notable. Ohconfucius 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Channels[edit]

Made redundant by similar articles/lists on same topic, such as Template:BBC and BBC television idents. Article does not link to any others and is in my opinion unnecessary. I was the creator of the article. Delete Wikiwoohoo 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yomangani 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with BBC, then Move to "BBC channels" and Redirect to BBC. Stephen B Streater 22:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with BBC Television. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redirect of BBC channels changed to BBC Television. Happy to delete BBC Channels. Stephen B Streater 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best option. Thanks. Wikiwoohoo 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already a cat for them.--Andeh 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE fails WP:MUSIC --Madchester 09:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap cd[edit]

198 mostly unrelated Google results for "crap reloaded" (as Crap CD is almost unsearchable), no real assertion of notability or popularity beyond hyperbole; includes in-depth histories of the production minutiae of every released ... what, exactly? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks to be a bunch of drunken frat guys who filmed themselves and put it out on google video. Points for chutzpah, but basically it's, well, crap. Fan-1967 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this lovely message from one of the authors on my talk page, it appears they may not be old enough to be frat guys. Fan-1967 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, in the picture they look awfully old for five-year-olds. ;) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Methinks they're still unknown, rather than notable. BigHaz 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. --Kjetil _r 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reinforced by repeated removal of AfD notice. Morgan Wick 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worthless and pitiable vanity. Postdlf 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fan-1967. Crap CD is crap. The people who made the article and the video are very stupid. Non-notable, worthless, non-Wikipedia like, in bad shape, should I go on? --S-man 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:CIVIL. Morgan Wick 22:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Yamla 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Won't Win! Crap CD Will beat you. this is a revoultion, and you are stopping progress! stop being such nerds! lighten up and make sure that the work of art and genius which is "Crap CD" will stay on this FREE and OPEN encyclopedia for ever. i bet none off you have even cared to watch the movies and realize what is being discussed here. I promise that if you watch the movies, you will beg for forgivness from us. And all you people, stop worrying about getting your frickin special "stars of deletion" or whatever other crappy merrit-badges they give out here and GET A LIFE!!! Travel the world, meet some girls, make some movies, get in touch with your inner souls or something, i dont give a crap, just ease off this wikipedia stuff for a while and let the revolution which is Crap CD be. maybe we'll send you guys T-shirts if your nice.
Crap CD is Better Than YOU!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raanan3000 (talk • contribs)

I dunno, when it comes to the choice of either contributing constructively to Wikipedia, or making endless and repetitive videos of karoake with my drunk male friends for which I then obsessively creep around Wikipedia to promote it in typo-ridden screeds, I think I've made the right choice. Postdlf 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Referring to Raanan3000, this is a long-dormant account with one edit to the sandbox until this past Sunday, with edits primarily to this article and Pornography, where he removed an image marked "DON'T REMOVE WITHOUT DISCUSSION" without discussion, removed comments from the talk page, left the aforementioned "mean man" comment on a user talk page, and has recently resorted to vandalizing user pages. He has now been blocked. Our concern is not that it's not good, but that it's not notable, and the Google results don't pan out. In addition to the results cited in nom, ""Baruch Rosenstein" gets 318 G-hits. "Yoel Rosby" gets 37, nine unique. Morgan Wick 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Resorting to personal attacks will not convince people to change their mind. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyro Computing[edit]

Non notable company Nuttah68 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Rangek 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it even claims to be "small", and I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ("Decision was Merge into the Bolton School article.--Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)").--SB | T 05:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolton School Paper[edit]

High school newspaper; inherently nonnotable. NawlinWiki 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's bad enough that we have articles on the schools themselves, but the school newspapers are just too much. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. InvictaHOG 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bolton School to form a brief section of the main page. --Mrclarke 06:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mrclarke. --Missmarple 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because it is notable enough to warrant some mention on the page about the schoool. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Turnstep per author's request (CSD G7).[35] — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Rickaby[edit]

vanity page, not a celebrity St.isaac 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, basically a personal history. Delete. --Fsotrain09 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:VAIN - Yomangani 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the premier faction"[edit]

No such title on Google; nor any mention of Eladon or IAP in fictional context. No author; no hyperlink. --Clappingsimon talk 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not many things that this is. Yomangani 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable web story fails WP:WEB. I'm getting 4 ghits. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ifnord 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarism (grammar)[edit]

This is not a technical term or a term of art, and it is not even well-defined. It may belong in Wiktionary, but it doesn't belong here.

I admit to being prejudiced against it, because it seems to me to embody an outdated and judgmentalism, but that's not why I think it should be removed: the article is no more than a definition. ColinFine 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary as dicdef - Yomangani 21:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, barbarism must have some standing in the linguistic community, as it appears and is defined in the article "Bad Grammar in Context" from Brown http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/mdh/bad-grammar.pdf

Instead of deletion, perhaps the article should be expanded to include the controversy over the political correctness of using a word that implies savageness to describe poor grammar.

Weak keep It is used and the article may have some hope of expansion. I've had it used about some of my more inventive French devoirs. Dlyons493 Talk 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article useful and would like to keep it, although if it could be expanded to show a source for the term; that might address some of the concerns.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, "The English word barbarism originally referred to incorrect use of language, but it is now used more generally to refer to ignorance or crudity in matters of taste, including verbal expression". Saugart 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikitionary as dicdef; not as nonsense or being outdated, as the nominator states, but merely a dicdef. (And the political correctness assertion is out of line - poor grammar is used to imply savageness, not the other way around.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a linguistic term analagous to a solecism, which no one seems to be wanting to delete. Even if it's obsolescent, it's because linguistics has become descriptive and thus contemporary linguists do not presume to declare a usage a barbarism, not because it no longer exists as a concept or because some other term has replaced it. Phrenology isn't practiced by doctors or psychologists anymore, but that's because it's been abandoned by professional communities, not because it doesn't exist as a concept or as a historical phenomenon or because it's been subsumed into some broader current practice. Moreover, the illustration with an Anglicism in French is useful, although this would be too much for a mere dictionary entry.--Atemperman 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's mainly a dicdef for an obsolete term, but it gets used in discussing grammar. Grammarians tend to slice things differently from each other. WP can't delete every gramatical term that the latest grammarians have deprecated. Barticus88 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boogie-woogie (dance).—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boogieing[edit]

"The article is nonsensical and unsalvageable" (as per User:BoogieBoy). Beyond that, it's possibly in violation of WP:WINAD. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boogie-woogie (dance), since that seems to be the author's intent, only in a more comedic manner. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as above. Stephen B Streater 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The above quote from the prod was mine; BoogieBoy was the author of the entry. The redirect suggestion is a great alternative.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per above. some user could redirect this into Boogie-woogie (dance). *~Daniel~* ☎ 23:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonza bottler day[edit]

Made-up holiday with no reliable sources worth speaking of. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the addition of references equally problematic. Chase's Calendar of Events 2001? A directory of 12,000 "special events" used by radio djs and the like to have something to read over the morning news. [36] Getting an entry doesn't seem to require the least bit of editorial oversight -- the point of the "reliable" in "reliable sources" -- you can even submit an entry online The newspaper mentions? Stories about Chase's, presumably mentioning the so-called holiday. Calton | Talk 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a web thing without legs. Maybe in another ten years this will really take off. I doubt it. But Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball anyway. Rklawton 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete It's a known day however it is not a holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.103.17 (talk • contribs) 19:39, August 8, 2006

Delete - secondary sources quoting a primary unreliable source don't count any more than the unreliable source did in the first place. In addition the primary source would seem to be more or less self-published so the whole article fails WP:OR.

You might also want to nominate Elaine Fremont and Gail Berger as they seem to be spin-offs Yomangani 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. I've added both Elaine and Gail to this AfD (below). I probably did it wrong, but it seems a reasonable approach. Rklawton 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did it correctly Yomangani 00:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete As I will post momentarily and in greater detail on Talk:Bonza bottler day, Bonza Bottler Day is not a “so-called holiday,” a “web thing without legs” or a hoax. Regardless of whether one views it as frivolous or otherwise, the references, external links, and even commentary at [Talk:Bonza bottler day] and on this page (i.e., Nojybles’ submission, below) evidence Bonza Bottler Day as an actual – not virtual – occasion that is acknowledged and celebrated in the USA and abroad via live events, radio broadcasts, and virtual and online media of various forms. Disdain for the quality of “special events” such as Bonza Bottler Day that are listed in Chase's Calendar of Events, and for the people and purposes that rely upon that resource, does not diminish the fact that Chase's Calendar of Eventshas been endorsed by sources that Wikipedia describes in [Reliable Sources] as “likely to be reliable, and [which] are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia”. Here are some such endorsements:

"The definitive guide to all holidays and anniversaries." --[Wall Street Journal] / "In its diversity and inclusiveness, [Chase's] is an exhaustive guide to the country's ideals and passions." --[Post] / "I'm a big fan of Chase's Calendar of Events!" --[Al Roker, "Today" / "The bible of special occasions." - [New York Times] / ["[The bible of holidays." Jeffry Scott, Atlanta Journal-Constitution]] / ["[Should be on standing order in every library." Reference and User Services Quarterly]].
.In his endorsement to delete the article (above), Calton acknowledges the existence of newspaper articles that cite Bonza Bottler Day (and the fact that he hasn't read them because they reference Chase's Calendar of Events.) However those articles, one should note, were published in media outlets that meet Wikipidia’s [Reliable Sources] guidelines.
•It is worth mentioning that my interest in Bonza Bottler Day is more than frivolous. I frequently use the history, purpose and uses of the event as a case study when teaching university courses at the college and undergraduate levels, professional seminars, and educational talk shows about business and public affairs, and in articles that – although published in blogs – have been cited elsewhere and elicited favorable - in some cases, grateful - responses. Some respondents were already familiar with the holiday and enjoyed reading about it; some of those people appreciated learning about implications or details that they were previously unaware of; and other respondents enjoyed learning about the holiday for the first time. Please note also that, despite the existence of greeting cards and a variety of directories, almanacs, calendars, and written and online media about Bonza Bottler Day, Wikipedia:Bonza Bottler Day was the source for the “Best Answer - Chosen by Asker” when an Australian submitted a copy of the article in response the Ask Yahoo! question: [[37]] and here [What is Bonza Bottler Day?]. Is that not one of the purposes for which Wikipedia was created?-Lisatolliver 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, No. Please see WP:NOT for a nice essay on what Wikipedia is not. Rklawton 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calton acknowledges the existence of newspaper articles that cite Bonza Bottler Day NO, Calton acknowledges the inserted newspaper references, and notes that from the headlines that they are obviously NOT about this so-called Bonza Bottler Day but about Chase's Calendar of Events -- meaning that as references they fail the "non-trivial" test, no matter how much respectability you try to attach to the sources. And given the ludicrously low standards for submission and inclusion in Chase's, they're not up to the "reliable source" standard -- no matter how much quoting of their ad copy you do. --Calton | Talk 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lots of reliable sources publish utter trivia from time to time, there's nothing unusual about that. Trivia published reliably is still trivia and not really worth noting in an encyclopedia that is decidedly not about trivia (see WP:NOT). The dearth of Google hits is truly telling for a "national" holiday. I get that many hits for my favorite local Jazz singer (who also doesn't yet rate an article). Rklawton 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently use the history, purpose and uses of the event as a case study when teaching university courses at the college and undergraduate levels, professional seminars... Let me be blunt: prove it. Let's start with the names and places of these courses and some evidence of inclusion in curricula, names and places of these professional seminars and evidence of inclusion, names and dates of media appearances and evidence of inclusion, etc. --Calton | Talk 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete As for the holiday being "made-up," I concur with Joe Kress' response to the issue at [Talk:Bonza Bottler Day]: "Of course this is an made-up 'holiday' or, more correctly, an event as the article itself implies, but all holidays were once made-up." -Lisatolliver 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit of absurd word-twisting that is too laughable to bother addressing. --Calton | Talk 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Elaine Fremont and Gail Berger as part of this process since their only claim to notability is Bonza bottler day. If "Bonza bottler day" is kept, we should also discuss merging the creator's articles with this one. Rklawton 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three (per my own nomination above) (else merge creators). Rklawton 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Yomangani 00:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: also delete the two additions, per User:Rklawton (just being sure my view on those two is clear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Delete em all. The only reference I can find to this is in the Instructor of 1995 which "Advises teachers to celebrate with their students Bonza Bottler Day, an Australian Groundhog Day celebrated each month on the day that is the same number as the month." I can find no references to this occasion in the Australian media nor have I heard of it before. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The article says this holiday is observed in the U.S. Rklawton 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also claims that it was named by an Australian. Uncle G 13:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; a holiday contrived for the sake of being a holiday. Marginalia 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete the holiday. I personally learned of this holiday reading Wikipedia this past March... Since I have celebrated every applicable month with my coworkers, as the tradition dictates. Whether you may like it or not, the existence of the page may have created or inceased awareness of the holiday, actually making it one. As for the claims of creation, if they are baseles, delete them. User:Nojybles 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC) User's only edit[reply]
If Wikipedia is responsible for creating or increasing awareness, then it pretty much says it wasn't notable enough to appear in the first place, doesn't it? --Calton | Talk 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and share your concern. However, I first learned about Bonza Bottler Day several years ago when conducting research in support of a marketing course I was developing and associated radio broadcast. Further investigation unearthed a number of articles, almanacs, calendars and even greeting card sites that referenced the holiday, its founder and its sponsor. Subsequently, other people who have heard/read my discussions about the holiday have furnished additional sources and references. I thought it would be appropriate to compile that information in Wikipedia.--Lisatolliver 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and share your concern. No, you don't, or else you might have started off with some actual evidence that met basic verifiabilty standards, instead of the flimsy blog references you started with and wikilawyering handwaving you've resorted to. --Calton | Talk 05:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie on Wikipedia I have addressed the Bonza Bottler Day deletion and now wish to do the same with Elaine Fremont. As I knew Elaine but lost touch with her over the years, I was glad to find a reference using her name. I originally read of her holiday and it's title in our local paper but also learned of Elaine's death from an automobile accident. Consequently, I was so shaken by her passing that I forgot the title. I recently searched on the web and was able to find reference and the information that I sought. Therefore, I request that this information remain for others to locate and understand the history and purpose of the holiday. I feel I should add, Elaine was a friend from church - not a friend of a friend or any of the sort. A real, flesh and blood, lovely girl that Lisa Tolliver has referenced and whom I personally knew. Elaine had a great sense of humor and would probably be laughing at Carlton's blunt and callous desire to eliminate something that he/she obviously has difficulty in understanding. Lighten up - smile - enjoy life and next month - celebrate Sept. 9 / Bonza Bottler Day with a box of cookies and surprise the office with a smile! --DKnebel 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC) User's third edit -- the first two being to Talk:Bonza bottler day[reply]

I recently searched on the web and was able to find reference and the information that I sought. Free "callous" advice: that means this article doesn't belong here. Wikipedia is not a publicity service or promotional vehicle: its intent is to record stuff that already has notability, import, and -- most importantly -- verification. Frankly, I find your clumsy attempt at emotional manipulation grotesque. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, as is usually the case in AfDs that generate that sort of lengthy "keep" rationales. Sandstein 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - The current hard copy edition of Chase's indicates that Bonza Bottler Day is trademarked. The fact that the trademark is not in the Library of Congress federal trademarks index indicates that it is trademarked in one of the 50 states. I have sent an inquiry to the holiday's sponsor to inquire which state it is trademarked in, since a link to the listing in the relevant state trademark database provides another reliable source. A reliable source that has already been provided is the reference by Steve Clark, [whose article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch] does not rely upon Chase's and is published in a reputable newspaper. Additionally, the Bonza Bottler Day article info box types the holiday "[Humorous observances]" and the article is internally linked to [Hallmark holiday]. That seems appropriate.

Several issues seem inappropriate and inconsistent about this entire discussion. ONE: Bonza bottler day lists more external links and references - including those above which are reliable - than multiple Wikipedia [Humorous observances] and [Hallmark holiday] articles that have neither been marked as Afd nor the subjected to heated contraversy such as this. Consistency with regard to RELIABILITY OF SOURCES would dictate that the those become Afd too. TWO: Consistency with regard to NOTABILITY would dictate that ALL [Humorous observances] and some [Hallmark holiday]s be deleted or that Bonza Bottler Day not be deleted.199.97.121.99 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's review this others and create separate AfD's for them, too. Rklawton 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other [Humorous observances]. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can't even get to the references – they're all behind some kind of registration firewall. This and the other "funny holiday" articles should go. Until today, I didn't even know any of them existed excluding April Fool's Day (not that I'm some kind of notability barometer - I'm just saying). Not to denigrate Bonza Bottler day observers to whom I'm sure this is important, but every day is bound to be some kind of "Third Tuesday in April Day" or "National Underarm Deodorant Day" or something. Besides, tomorrow could be "National Toenail Clipping Day" in the U.S. while it's some other kind of "official" or humorous day in every other country around the globe. 120 countries with 120 different "official" days for any given calendar day, multiplied by 365? I think it's ridiculous and unachievable to include all of them or to even make the attempt. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense.--Peta 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With regards to the hopes that it can be improved, deletion of an article by AfD due to it being unsourced does not prejudice creation of a sourced one, and as this article is two very short paragraphs and a list of works I doubt I'd even need to restore the content into userspace for anyone interested in doing that (though if anyone asks, I obviously will). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Fay Ellwood[edit]

Lots of unsourced passive-voice claims of notability here ("considered an expert" -- by who?), but only 141 unique Ghits. Looks nonnotable to me. NawlinWiki 22:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in the hopes it may be improved. BTW, I got like 9,000 google hits? Rangek 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not using google properly. You have to target the search with quotation marks like this - which gives ~140 unique ghits. Bwithh 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Thanks. I still think there may be some hope for this article.... Have you contacted the creator? Rangek 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of verifiable sourcing and substantive detail means that the subject's vague claims to fame/expertise currently fail WP:PROF Bwithh 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by anon in days before Seigenthaler-gate. Contact may be impossible. Agree with Bwithh. Morgan Wick 02:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Author of 4 books (Good News From Tolkiens Middle Earth, Psychic Visits To the Past, The Uttermost Deep: The Challenge of Painful Near-Death Experiences, In a Faraway Galaxy [with Lee Vibber & Doris Robin] ). These are all on Google - admittedly with fairly small publishers. Also a few scholarly articles (use Google Scholar) primarily on Evil and Austen. Dlyons493 Talk 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a lot of "Tolkien experts" out there. There is also Category:Tolkien_studies that would encompass this sort of thing. Could someone who knows about notability discuss things over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth to help decide where the line should be drawn? There are certainly more widely known and published authors and scholars and journals that would, in my opinion, be more deserving of articles than Ms Ellwood (for example, Verlyn Flieger, the journal Tolkien Studies, and so forth). On the other hand, I had never heard of Ms Ellwood before, and I am grateful to Wikipedia for drawing her to my attention. Would it contravene some ethics code if I kept a copy of this article in my user space so that I can add her to a list of Tolkien fandom "people" in future? Either here or at another wiki, if that kind of subject material is too specialist for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 08:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney Antiquarian Society[edit]

From the people who brought you Orkney Beekeepers' Association (see the AFD). A local, short-lived, non-notable group. Was speedied, but restored on the grounds that "notability asserted" -- despite the fact there isn"t a breath of notability asserted anywhere in the article. Calton | Talk 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, semantic debates about "learned societies" versus "clubs" aside, this whateveritis doesn't assert notability anywhere. BigHaz 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A learned society focused on regional archaeology that published at least 15 years of proceedings and reports held in the British Library and other major research centers [38]. Why wouldn't we want to keep this? Should be expanded to include a discussion of their work. --JJay 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The British Library is the main UK legal deposit library so it holds just about everything, so its not really a good indicator of notability or respectability. There are other legal deposite libraries too at major research centres (not clear which ones you're talking about) such as Oxford and Cambridge Bwithh 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about major research libraries such as the New York Public Library [39], Harvard University [40] and The Newberry Library [41] (links may time out). Their publications are also held by Oxford and many other University libraries that seem eminently respectable. --JJay 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That their publications are available at some research libraries says very little about whether the group that produced them was notable, then or, especially, now. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...But does indicate that this was not a speedy. As does the fact that the Society is still being cited in bibliographies today [42], [43]. Your edit warring, failure to use the talk page and flagrantly uncivil edit summaries [44] thus seem completely misplaced. Please review WP:CSD and WP:CIV. --JJay 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as subsection into new article Archaeology of the Orkney Islands (I volunteer to create a basic stubby article about this topic). The Orkneys are a notable archaeological site in the UK but currently no article seems to cover this archaeological topic or the modern organizations associated with this. It would make better sense to put this short-lived group into a context that explains the significance of Orkney archaeology which includes their modern equivalents e.g. The Orkney Archaelogical Trust[45]. If in time, the subsection becomes very long, it can be spun off as a separate article. I would also consider an edited merge of the articles of persons associated with the antiquarian organization. Bwithh 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename to Archaeology of the Orkney Islands. Bwithh's suggestion makes sense. I think it's important to recognize, though, that the work of learned societies is worth recording, and that they are generally of greater notability than the local archery club. As well, the edit history on this article is worth noting. Some of the edit summaries show a pattern of incivility. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And some of the edit summaries show a pattern of empty hand-waving and irrelevant wikilawyering. Know anything about those? --Calton | Talk 07:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA... BigHaz 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stong keep. A learned society that published fifteen volumes is an assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 06:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A learned society that published fifteen volumes is evidence of access to a printing press. I'll note also you didn't claim it as evidence of actual notability, merely its assertion. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly fine little article on a learned society. Sure, it could be merged somewhere, but I see no eason why it needs to be, and there really is no reason to take this to AFD. Calton has also been edit-warring to put a speedy tag on this, which I find highly inapproppriate. up+l+and 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this society is notable enough. As well as publishing scholarly articles, the society was involved in helping preserve newly-discovered sites, e.g. at Rennibister, and recording new finds. The society's publications are part of the archaeological record - this article tells people a bit about them. They took an interest in non-archaeological history too - so I'm not sure about a merge.--HJMG 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Insufficient content here to warrant a separate article. Eusebeus 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now expanded a little. --HJMG 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very nice job. --JJay 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable, notable enough to make it an interesting read. Kudos to the expansion. Ifnord 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chisme[edit]

Dictionary definiton. Regardless of how much text has been added, this article exists only to define this term. It's also unreferenced and NPOV. eaolson 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete es tonto, vato. ¡Orale! Danny Lilithborne 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - sending it to wiktionary would be too cruel, it's not even a complete definition. Yomangani 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. foreign term not used in English. --Svartalf 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it can't be more than a dictionary definition, but saying that it's not used in the English-speaking world is untrue. English-language papers directed toward a Latin/Hispanic/whatever-term-you-prefer population will use the term as described. GassyGuy 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScriptureGroup.net[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, also no Alexa rank. Jacek Kendysz 22:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site is provides a useful bible tool. I recommend it should not be deleted

Delete per nom and the fact that the website's forum has under 150 posts and no activity since February. - Thorne N. Melcher
This is a weak argument. The primary objective of the website is not the Forum. It should be kept and not deleted -- Aolowe

Delete per nom, non-notable and no reliable sources --Xyzzyplugh 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elbert Stannard[edit]

Deletion nomination Arrrr me hearties. Gather ye round for a spine-chilling, rum-sodden, hell-bound sailor's tale of long ago - when ships were ships and men were... men - that's all about nautical mystery and skulduggerous murder most foul. 'Tis the tale of "Old ~~But~~ Nutmegger" himself, Capt'n Elbert Stannard, the champion sailing "contributor" to the astounding exploits of the doughty folk of the Connecticut sailing community. The circumstances were said to be... aye, suspicious. And arrrr... indeed,the body was never found. 'Tis truly uncanny. Aye, arrrr.... a horrible and salty crime which confounds all human reason even after maybe hundreds of years, maybe not... no-one really knows... the records are long lost to Davy Jones' Locker, so far as this seadog knows. The only clue is the fine ye olde bed & breakfast country inn which bears the Cap'n Stannard's accursed name!! Can YE SOLVE THE MYSTERY?!?!? (Paging whoever the Jessica Fletcher of the 19th-or-whatever century was... er... using whatever the equivalent of paging was back then. Maybe actual page-boys). Arrrr... Aye.... Anyway fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BIO. Bwithh 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:BIO. Rangek 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arr, there be a piddling 46 G-hits. Cap'n Morgan Wick 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom (more or less). Dlyons493 Talk 02:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 46 seems to fail WP:BIO Ohconfucius 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was image already deleted, use {{db|reason here}} to tag your own uploads in future.--Andeh 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson_River_Bipole_HVDC_Anchor_Pylon.jpg[edit]

Erroneously mis-named and uploaded by me. This is not an HVDC anchor Pylon as indicated. It is an HVAC anchor pylon Weaponofmassinstruction 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this isn't a "page" that needs deleting as such, but the image IS identified very incorrectly, and I don't have a copy of the correct image (not one that is good enough to use, anyway) to replace it with.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders to Atlantic County, New Jersey - I've just redirected it as the target article actually contains more detail. No consensus on Sue Schilling and Frank Finnerty. Joe Kelly (Freeholder) is not subject to this AfD - the AfD tag added to his article did not correctly point to this AfD. Another editor 'corrected' it so it pointed to a separate nomination. That closed as "keep" on 12th August. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders[edit]

This non-notable local government system is covered in the article for the municipality. It therefore does not need its own article. Erechtheus 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pages for non-notable local officeholders who fail WP:BIO and the proposed candidates and elections criteria for notability:

Sue Schilling

Joe Kelly (Freeholder)

Frank Finnerty

Keep the Three Freeholders, Merge Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders into Atlantic County, New Jersey - There needs to be far more work done for the individual Atlantic County's Freeholders to match the level achieved for the fifty-odd Freeholders covered elsewhere in the state of New Jersey, which have been created and maintained as part of WP:NJ, an effort to expand the scope and depth of information regarding the state. While these are not great articles at this point, there is ample, independent, verifiable information that meets all criteria of WP:BIO to justify retention of the articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Candidates and elections relates to those not yet in office. All of the individuals listed here currently serve on the Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, which performs all legislative and executive function for the County. As far as the Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders article is concerend, there is nothing in that article that is not already added or should not be merged into Atlantic County, New Jersey. Alansohn 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no need for a Merge into the county article -- the information is present already. As to the freeholders in question, it is my understanding that holding a purely local office is not a basis for sufficient notability. If there are other reasons these individuals are notable, please include that information in the articles. Erechtheus 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are county offices, not state or national. Notability standards are not met. --DarkAudit 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These articles are stubs. If there are specific criteria that are not being met, it would be helpful to all involved to specify what they are. Alansohn 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply These are county officeholders. Not an encyclopediac position. If the subjects don't have other accomplishments that rise to the level of WP:BIO, there's not much you can do to improve the article. --DarkAudit 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - We need to have more information regarding your postition that county officeholders are not encylopediac. My concern is that in Wikipedia we use reliable sources, and don't rely on repetition of a statement or putting a word in italics to make it so. I have searched through the criteria of both WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and find no automatic exclusion criteria that would disallow county officeholders. As requested previously, can you please refer me to the specific standard you are using as justification that specifies that state or national offficeholders are encylopedic, but corresponding county officials are by definition not. I have searched through the criteria of both WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and find no automatic exclusion criteria that would disallow county officeholders. Alansohn 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply From WP:BIO: 'Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.' and 'Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.' A county office fails the first part, and merely listing that the members of the board are members of the board fails the second. --68.69.152.140 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC) not signed in there... should be --DarkAudit 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per DarkAudit. Organisation not notable except as part of something larger. By the same token, the individuals, by virtue of merely being the organisation's elected representatives, should not be considered notable. Ohconfucius

Merge per Alansohn's suggestion --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the freeholders individual articles, they're really non-notable Merge the ACBOCF article into Atlantic County, NJ. Put their names in the ACNJ article, sure...if people want to know more about them, in all their mediocrity, then they can find it at the Atlantic County website. —ExplorerCDT 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three, Merge one, per Alansohn. On its surface, the WP:BIO guideline seems to support delete. However, there is also a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, which seems to go beyond the current WP:BIO guideline. It states, "As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, this guideline states that articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Well, if an article can be written about a candidate that satisfies these criteria, then surely by extension, an article can be written about the election winner, i.e., officeholder/incumbent. Although the proposed guideline seems to contemplate state-level elections, given the examples that are provided, the policy is still open to discussion and could be extended to county-level elections. Deleting articles in the absence of a clear policy or guideline is not a good idea, especially when said articles are part of a WikiProject that is committed to expanding them. Accurizer 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: In the name of consistency, I'm not sure how county-level officeholders differ from schools. A quick browse through [Category:High schools in the United States] reveals that there are numerous schools listed that would fail nearly every test under WP:BIO, save the 100 year test; of survivors, many would pass the 100 year test solely because the actual structure is still standing and/or in use. Of course, other schools will probably be gone or unused, 30, 50, or 99 years from now. Finally, WP:SCH is seeking to upgrade many of these articles. High schools just don't seem encyclopedic to me. I would support standards around schools, but that would result in an awful lot of AfDs. --ishu 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The question of whether the ability of lists to annotated is worth the cost of list/category duplication is old one, thoroughly argued. Ultimately, the weight given to the benefits of annotation is a subjective one: some will find this feature more useful than others. On a question of subjective cost/benefit analysis, recourse to a simple tally may be helpful: this is a rough, but fair, way to estimate the community's judgment of the subjective merit of these list. Here, 9d/4k = 69%. There is previous precedent also supporting deletion here in List of British Actors.
That said, there is one special concern regarding these lists. For at least some of them (Iran, Vietnam, Bengal), the community should evaluate the question of systematic bias; for others (particularly Jewish American, or anything-American), systemic bias is less a concern. Since these list vary with respect to a key factor, and since the raw margin favoring deletion is barely sufficient to invoke admin discretion, I will invoke admin discretion to call this discussion No consensus/default keep. Especially given concerns of systemic bias in covering the developing world, these lists should not be considered en masse, but separately. Xoloz 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali actresses (and other Lists of actors by nationality)[edit]

This is a follow-up to the AfD Discussion on List of British Actors (and three similar lists). The result of that discussion was delete. I am now nominating the remaining articles in Category:Lists of actors by nationality for deletion. Included in this nomination are:

List of actors from France

List of actors from Germany

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)

List of Indian movie actresses

List of Iranian actors

List of Israeli actors

List of actors from Italy

List of actresses from Italy

List of Japanese actors

List of Japanese actresses

List of Jewish American actors in television

List of Swedish actors

List of Vietnamese actors

Until the AfD discussion on the List of British Actors, no consideration had been given to the encyclopedic value of these lists. All of these lists have categories. I believe that all of these articles are redundant as that is what categories are for. Furthermore, some lists provide an ostensible criteria for inclusion, but others do not. For consistency, these should all be deleted. Agent 86 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Bwithh 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates category. Further, the criteria for inclusion is too vague. e.g. for Italy 'who reside in Italy or those who have appeared largely in Italy film productions.'. BlueValour 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow precedents, but the discussion with the previous article proved how redundant these lists are when we already have a category for the topic. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Lists can provide information categories can't. They also provide an opportunity for expansion of the rather sucky coverage Wikipedia has on the developping world. Although possibly some of these should be merged with each other. (Example have one "List of Japanese actors" rather than two by gender)--T. Anthony 06:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-there was a comment in the original AfD that suggested the lists with lots of redlinks be preserved because they can't be represented by categories. While shifting the redlinks over to WP:RA might work, it'll take a lot of work. --ColourBurst 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've already moved the redlinks to Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/Requested articles. utcursch | talk 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eusebeus 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better than categories because they can be annotated. --JJay 10:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no way the lists can be complete. Categories are there to serve exactly this purpose. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - especially the excessive German lists. I don't buy the argument that lists are somehow more convenient than categories. I guess they are if you like scrolling a lot or making the test on your monitor super small. ...And Beyond! 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per And Beyond. CaliEd 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It makes me very sad to see that yet another useful list—the List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)—is going to be deleted, but I know from experience that there are too many willing executioners for me to efficiently oppose such a plan. Cui bono? I also believe the kind of bulk nomination practised here is illegitimate and inappropriate. See Agent 86's talk page for details. <KF> 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer if the AfD discussion remains here or at this AfD's talk page, so I'd ask that any further comments not be put onto my talk page. I stand by my nomination, which was made entirely in good faith. The procedure I followed is expressly contemplated and provided for here. I fail to see how it's inappropriate for me to follow the very guidelines stated. Agent 86 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I've copied my arguments to the talk page as requested. I don't want to make more enemies than necessary, so let me stress the fact that I've never doubted Agent 86's good faith. <KF> 00:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up - I never thought you were trying to make enemies. I doubt I'd be unable to sit down and enjoy a nice cup of tea with you. Agent 86 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and expand list with brief detail. --TheM62Manchester 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you have done before the close I might change my vote. However, this list has been around over 12 months and it's not been done so I doubt it will be. BlueValour 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list has been around over 12 months. WHICH list? The Bengali actresses? <KF> 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - if you delete these, there are about a hundred similar ones still out there. It's opening too big a can of worms. Let's renominate all of them together and then I may well vote "Delete". Mad Jack 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The similar pages have already been noted and are planned to follow the same route as these. So technically all are being nominated eventually. ...And Beyond! 04:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example things like all the X-American lists (i.e. see Template:Americans) would have to go too, right? Mad Jack 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is plenty enough. You have to nominate in like groups so folks can take a view. Where lists have been used to provide added value then I would vote keep. The point about these is that a category would do a better job. You can't generalise. BlueValour 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree a category would do a much better job. So you're saying everything in Template:Americans should go, too, i.e. it'll soon be nominated as well? (by you?) Mad Jack 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BlueValour is right. If all actor pages were nominated at once more people would complain about the bulk nomination. Voting keep at this point just slows down the process pointlessly. It won't bring back List of Canadian actors or List of British actors so I don't see why List of Iranian actors should survive but not them. For one thing, actor listing have become a "craze" that needs to die down. Everyone complains about "Red links! What about the red links?!" A User on another afd put "As WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."" Just because an actor exists, doesn't mean they automatically deserve a wikipedia article. Furthermore, it's a sad fact that red links don't attract anyone to make articles. If someone is devoted enough to set time aside to make an article for an actor that isn't vanity, it's good evidence that article is worth being here. Can't use that self-pruning method on red links. ...And Beyond! 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed my vote to Delete, but I hope if these go then the X-American ones and others are next. Mad Jack 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, categories don't provide information about gender and year of carrier. And after all: What about the red links? Are they also found in the categories? --84.176.178.112 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1st user contribution. BlueValour 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep all please some should be annotated but not erased Yuckfoo 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK are you about to annotate? If you encyclopaedic annotate I will vote Keep. BlueValour 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're asking for something that will never happen, Yuckfoo. Categories are maintainable. Once an actor article is created and checked for legitimacy, you simply add a note for a category. Lists can go on infinitely with anonymous users adding unmaintainable names on a daily basis. Nobody in the right mind will plan on spending their months preparing the red links in List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)..especially when its very likely that bundles of translations will be needed. ...And Beyond! 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Actions such as cleanup, renaming etc. don't need AFD. Petros471 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2)[edit]

Originally listed as a {{prod}}. Prod was removed with edit summary, "deprod, non-notable members can be removed". That explanation is insufficient in my opinion. I am bringing it here for discussion, for the same reasons as the prod: unencyclopedic list not in support of any article; unverified and without sources; possibly original research; a potentially indeterminate list. This list is doing what a Category:Japanese Army Officers ought to be doing. Agent 86 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why not tell people the rank of the officers they are looking up? Kappa 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup, re-prod, editing, and citation. Basically, this article deserves to exist, but not in its current form--it needs a huge overhaul to meet Wikipedia standards. This is definitely something that users of , WP might want to have quick access to, but a bloated list of too many officers doesn't cut it. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename/sort A list of senior officers - say, of general rank and higher - would make more sense. This list currently has headings for "Sergeant", "Lieutenants" (spelt wrong), "Corporals" and "Regular Cadets" of which there must have been tens of thousands and quite possibly, hundreds of thousands. Or perhaps list could be renamed to List of notable Japanese Army Officers (WW2) and each name reassessed for notability. I also prefer the category idea in general, as suggested by nom Bwithh 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the information could be wildly inaccurate for all I know. I agree that a category could serve the same end, but since the article exists, why kill it since it seems to represent a lot of work. Also, the point about notability is well-taken, although that should presumably be implicit in the grounds for inclusion. Eusebeus 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Collection of Oddly Shaped Keys[edit]

Not achieved notability. Only 9 independent Google hits, here. BlueValour 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no listing on Amazon, and I can't find any page that proves that the book even has an ISBN number. This might even be something published with a vanity press. I'm willing to change my opinion of someone can offer me evidence to the contrary, however. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon listing and ISBN number isn't a guarantee (since anyone can get these even without publication) that a book is notable or even exists. Bwithh 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- So not having an ISBN or an Amazon listing must make the book really non-notable. Richardjames444

Delete as per nom. appears to be self-published and highly obscure. Bwithh 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the website, if you want to order a copy, make the check payable directly to the author. If that doesn't mean self-published, I don't know what does. Fan-1967 03:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bwithh and Thorne N. Melcher. --S-man 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. - Bobet 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle[edit]

An organization of only local importance. There are 155 Jewish Federations in the US and this one is only notable because of its role in the July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. The content of this afd was moved from July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting and a separate article on the organization itself seems unnecessary. GabrielF 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this for several reasons:
The Federation might have gained notoriety over just a shooting, but it gained notoriety nevertheless. As such it deserves its own page, which should be built up. Some ideas include a photograph, reactions to the event, and its future trajectory as it handles the event.

I think that its better for organizing article structure to include a very short paragraph on the site of the event, and then link to further information. The article on the July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting should be on the event itself, althought building a web to peripheral information is definitely needed. Inclusion of detailed information on the Center diminishes article quality, whereas including just a short blurb on the site, without further elaboration does a diservice to the site itself.

Deleting this page is eleminating information that is now needed in an encyclopedic article. Before the shooting this Federation was indeed one of many, after the shooting it is encyclopedic material. It would be a disservice to our readers if we didn't improve information on this Federation in its own page, as much as it would a be a disservice to provide this information only in an article connected to a tragic event.--Cerejota 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of the event it is indeed notable Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For my above stated reasons.--Cerejota 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Leuko 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect back into July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. — RJH (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that it was selected as a target of a quite notable crime makes it notable; we keep bios of nearly executed murderer not because of any notability of their own, but if the government thinks it is soooooo important to kill them, that is notability in itself. Here, a guy singled out this organization to avenge what he didn't like going on in Mideast. That's notable, because ladies and gents, no other religious federation of anywhere else in the US can claim that it has suffered a fatality due to that. Carlossuarez46 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (The person who selected it as a target of a notable crime was crazy; who knows what his reasoning was. Perhaps he has a dislike of Seattle, as well.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats OR. The person who did the shooting unequivocally stated that it was because "of what is going in Israel". Site was not randomly targetted but politically targetted.--Cerejota 07:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He said, "who knows what his reasoning was". We don't know. Just because a crazy person says something doesn't make it true. In any case, he also said he was a Muslim, but in fact he had converted to Christianity. It doesn't matter what this person said; what matters is what they did, how they did it, and what the consequences of those actions are or will be in the future. We don't get inside the minds of killers and try to figure them out. We report the facts the best we can, and leave the interpretations to the experts. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We use verifiabiliy before truth. The only verifiable motive is that. No verifiable source has questioned the mental health of the shooter. Its OR.--Cerejota 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Arthur Rubin. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Arthur, Tewfik^Talk 05:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the location of a six-victim shooting spree which was covered in major new outlets. Pretty notable to me. Ifnord 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contie[edit]

Appears to be a made-up game with no references provided. Googling did not find any reliable resources, just wiki mirrors Whpq 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This might just be someone writing a game trying to get a little bit of free advertising. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Concocted by primitive students in the Glasgow area in the late 20th Century" - Made up in school one day. --IslaySolomon 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Ladybirdintheuk 11:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IslaySolomon Lurker ^talk 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Weideman[edit]

I believe this page fits the criteria of a vanity page, as described in Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. It reads very much like a promotional article positioning Mr. Weideman in the brand placement business. Gosgood 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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