Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 26

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baker (TV series)[edit]

Delete: This article is total rubbish. It has been set up by a user who has done this thing before. He makes things up and posts them on various internet message boards (mainly Digitalspy and TV Forum) and sometimes sets up Wikipedia articles based on these, or modifies other articles to fit. He has done this numerous times before, and I'm suprised his Wikipedia account hasn't been deactivated. Many of his message board posts recently have been based around Matt Baker, and he has mentoned this "talk show" (which doesn't exist) several times recently. James2001 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. For future reference, please list AfD candidates at the bottom of the day's list, rather than the top. BigHaz 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Block the user for vandalism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Coredesat. Block for vandalism. Mikeeilbacher 01:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Core. Erechtheus 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what this list is; it uses a precise definition of "charismatic leader." Setting this aside, there still seems to be some disagreement whether it's possible to categorically describe a person as a "charismatic leader" even by the dictates of that precise definition. It may help to add some prose explaining how each entry on this list meets that definition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of charismatic leaders[edit]

It seems to me that this list is iherently POV and serves no useful purpose here.--Konstable 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The list has and very clear criterion for list member inclusion ("as defined by Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority), and each list member has a reliable source as a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a "list of charismatic leaders", this is a "list of leaders who have ever been call charismatic in print". I'm sure you could find such a citation for just about any leader ever. - CheNuevara 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A better name for this list would be "List of leaders who have been considered charismatic". However, this list is inherently POV, and, although extensively sourced, is just the opinions of certain people. I imagine there are a few people out there who think Bill Clinton or Ronald Regan weren't very charismatic... Green451 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CheNuevara. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even the reference to the "definition" by Weber is Weber's POV, and is fairly subjective in any event. I don't think we need a "List of leaders Max Weber would classify as charismatic". Agent 86 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term charismatic can only be a matter of opinion Lurker say/said 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a political science typography of leadership. The term doesn't mean that they 'have charisma', but that their leadership authority stems from their charisma, rather than being founded primarily in some other source. Aargh. Please reconsider - it looks like some of these votes stem from a misunderstanding. Gravitor 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It appears most proponents of this article's deletion do not understand the concept of charismatic authority, and are thus assuming this article is just of list of leaders described as "charismatic" (which would lilely be POV by nature). Because this article's reason for deletion is based on a misunderstanding, and not any violation, it should remain on wikipedia, and expanded to include more examples of charismatic leaders, perhaps with a broader explanation/definition of charismatic authority. --NEMT 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This proponent of deleting the article has read Max Weber and still thinks this article should be deleted. Did you read our article on charismatic authority? The first sentence contains the phrase "exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character". The caption on the top picture states that "Jesus is considered by many historians ..." Just because they aren't based on your POV does not mean that they aren't POV. Someone else's POV is also not acceptable. - CheNuevara 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the caption is wrong. Charismatic authority is a concept used in sociology, not in history. Andries 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NEMT - suggest that the nom might be based on misunderstanding. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is not useful and POV. NCurse work 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, the title of the article is excessively vague and confusing. It has confused almost everyone here, and thus probably confuses a majority of readers. Delete as non-notable. Otherwise, move to List of charismatic leaders as defined by Weber's classification of authority. — goethean ॐ 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree to this move. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have no problem with this move only I would like to include Max Weber's first name in the title (which is only a detail) i.e. List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority. Andries 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the Fidel Castro talk page there has been a discussion raging for months over whether Fidel Castro is charismatic or not -- extremely strong opinions on both sides. Could this list settle the issue for them? He's not on there. Mattisse 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. Unencyclopedic, if interesting. Jacqui★ 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't ever see this list ever getting to NPOV. Whispering 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again, many of you seem to misunderstand the concept of a charismatic leader. While the article is in need of attention and should clarify the distinction between charismatic, legal, and traditional authority to avoid confusion, this is not reason enough to remove the article. The tripartite theory of authority is an important element of both political science and sociology, and articles classifying specific leaders in authority-groups are helpful and encyclopedic. --NEMT 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to your comment: A third party POV is still not a neutral one. See above. - CheNuevara 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You still seem to be missing the point. There is no POV. Charismatic authority describes the method of gaining and/or holding power through rallying public suppot as opposed to other methods such as being part of a hereditary ruling class or elected majority, it has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion of a leader or his/her actual or perceived level of charisma of competence. --NEMT 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment to this comment perhaps this could benefit from a better description of what constitutes "listed sources"? Right now it seems to indicate that if someone categorizes a leader according to Weber's distinction anywhere in print it should go on the list, but that doesn't take into account disputes or disagreements about the classification and is rightly near-useless and confusing. Ziggurat 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regardless of any misunderstanding on the part of the nominator, this article does not appear to have encylopedic content, or the potential for encyclopedic content. It should be moved to a willing editor's User space, and removed from the article namespace. There is too much room for disagreement, and no means exists to establish facts which will support the application of this theory. --71.36.251.182 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment if too much room for disagreement is a valid reason for deleting an article then I can think of a long list of other articles that should be deleted. Let us start with e.g. Israel. Andries 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. --SFont 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Can somebody please explain why s/he considers the list POV? I sincerely cannot understand this because the sociological concept of charismatic leadership is neutral and the list is well sourced. Andries 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Can somebody please explain to me why Fidel Castro is not on that list? I looked at the criteria and he fits. Shall I put him on? Mattisse 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a reliable source has described Fidel to be a charismatic leader as per Max Weber's definition, you can add it. This has nothing to do with the value judgement of "charismatic". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • O.K. Castro goes on! - I'm sure you count the many BBC News and the New York Times articles - as well as the new books out on Castro, one by Anthone DePalma that describes how the NYTimes and it's reporter Herbert L. Matthews helped create Castro's charisma. And the book by the CIA guy Brian Latell that goes on at length about Castro's charisma. Too tired tonight but I'll do it tomorrow. Mattisse 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This seems to be a fruitless discussion as the advocates of deleting the article continually ignore the clarification of charismatic authority's definition and refuse to acknowledge any misunderstanding. We can only hope the wiki admins will have more sense. The article should be partially rewritten to include further explanations of tripartite authority, however, it should not be deleted, and it is not POV. --NEMT 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment the article should not have extensive explanations, because it is a list. Explanation of the list can be found at charismatic authority. Andries 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for future reference, please list new AfD candidates at the bottom of the day's page. BigHaz 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best that this article can accomplish is to be one of the biggest POV arguments on Wikipedia.70.106.115.245 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep—that it might develop into POV discussions (for example by those that are appalled that George Bush isn't there and Bill Clinton is) is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to participate in a reasoned discussion to determine whether the list is correct. Don't let your POV get in the way of legitimate encyclopedic material. Williamborg 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I don't doubt the legitimacy of a list detailing those described under Weber's definition, the title of this article implies anything but. He does not have a monopoly on the use of the term "charismatic leader", and I don't think it's enough to mention this condition in the intro. Almost any reader would interpret the title as it stands to be a general (and POV) description, and people could (quite rightly) dispute why Weber's definition was the only one selected for such a generic topic. The solution seems to be either renaming this article, or merging it to Charismatic authority. Ziggurat 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is unavoidably POV, and would be subject to edit wars over which POV is the 'correct' one. The examples of Clinton and Dubya are such polarizing figures that a 'reasoned discussion' is sadly a pipe dream. --DarkAudit 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per ≈ jossi ≈ comments above. Webers concept is clearly defined and it is a recognised political science term akin to cult of personality. It may need some work however. But it would be a disaster if this page was removed based on a lack of understanding of a legitimate academic concept.--Zleitzen 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete/possibly merge:this is pointless rubbish, but if it is so much of a key part of Max Weber's presence in the encyclopedia, it should probably go on his article. Without Max, it obviously should be deleted because its POV. This is not nearly as notable as List of messiah claimants and the like.--Musaabdulrashid 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Weber is to political science what Freud is to psychology. How on earth is this concept "pointless rubbish"?
This page is two links away from the Max Weber article, and no one should need this if they've read Charismatic authority. listcruft--Musaabdulrashid 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you saying that no one should need examples which demonstrate the theory of Charismatic authority? Also, though the theory stems from Weber it plays a continuing role in the study of political science. See my links above. All theories in academia are reliant and best demonstrated by the study of tangible examples.--Zleitzen 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CheNuevara. - Mertens21 05:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per ≈ jossi ≈ and Zleitzen above. I read the inclusion criteria and it was clear to me that Fidel Castro fits. It seems to me very useful to have a set of criteria for charisma that is recognized in the academic field of potitical science. Maybe the name of the list could be changed to include a reference to Weber. Mattisse 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jossi, Zleitzen, and NEMT, although such retitling/cleanup as proposed by Mattisse is likely in order. Others have addressed most of the salient points supra, but it should be said that, pace User:CheNuevara, whilst a third party POV is still not a neutral one, where such POV is presented as the subjective (or even objective) contentions of another, we've no problem (toward which, see, e.g., WP:V, viz., that the threshold for inclusion...is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original]). To be sure, the pronouncements of a non-notable individual or the non-notable pronoucements of a notable individual aren't encyclopedic, but the dispositive issues there are, principally, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V; where a classification system or subjective treatment is notable (either in view of its currency or of the prominence of its proponents), such concerns do not entail. Consider, for example, the attitudinal taxonomy of James Barber, which surely, even as it seeks to interpret objective facts through objective criteria, is necessarily subjective; the conclusions of Barber, though, are surely notable. The argument here is not unlike one that could be essayed toward the deletion of, to name an article I created, WNBA's All-Decade Team, inasmuch as such list is POV; the list, though, is promulgated by a notable organization, and the conclusions of that organization are notable. The only distinction here is as to titling, and the list might be moved in order that it should be clear that the assessments of charisma are not those of Wikipedia. Joe 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jossi, NEMT, Zleitzen, Joe, and everyone else who's outlined the reasons why better than I could. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable political science concept that is very encyclopedic. I do agree that the terminology needs to be better expressed. I suspect the POV claims are tied into a base assumption that calling someone charismatic is inherently a POV descriptor (either positive or negative). If the article could better outline "Charismatic authority" and demonstrate the neutrality of the term more it would go a long way towards quelling the POV fears. Agne 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While they might be charasmatic according to Max Weber, the last time I checked, everyone has a different opion. per nom Mikeeilbacher 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete original research. By the way, as a professional historian influenced by Weberian political sociology, I must say that I strongly disagree with the classification of many leaders of Western liberal democracies as examples of "charismatic" authority. These kinds of classifications should be made by professional political scientists, not Wikipedia editors. 172 | Talk 17:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, no 172 - This list is not original research it is sourced - or at least it should be sourced - to political science analysis. Anyone who has spent any time reading or listening to political philosophers debate examples of various leaders and how they relate to concepts of the three forms of legitimacy would testify to the legitimacy of the need for examples. The title should be "List of leaders described as examples of charismatic authority" or something similar. And that should be the end of it.--Zleitzen 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no Zleitzen - Just because something happens to be "sourced" does not mean it is not original research. Political scientists disagree on these classifications considerably. At present, any Wikipedia editor can dig up something by any author describing any random leader as "charismatic," regardless of whether or not the "source" happens to be a serious scholar of Weberian political sociology. This article is beyond the realm of what Wikipedia editors are qualified to do. 172 | Talk 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment on comment 172, feel free to remove the sources by people who are not a "serious scholar of Weberian political sociology" with an explanation of the talk page. Please note that the concept is more a religious one than political. Weber considered the Shaman the most primitive example of charismatic authority and I think he considered the prophet as a typical example of charismatic authority. Andries 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars do not necessarily interpret and apply the work of Max Weber in a consistent way. The very selection of whom we cite in this entry is an act of original research and imposing a POV in itslef. While I make a career of doing so off Wikipedia, my own original research and POV is no more appropriate than that of any other Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia. So it would be inappropriate for me to follow your suggestion. 172 | Talk 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weber himself gave examples of "charismatic authority" in his work. Stick with Weber's examples, or else, as you do in this list, we're not just reporting encyclopedic facts but going into the realm of original research. 172 | Talk 05:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should keep those which can be sourced by a number of various sources. --Ionius Mundus 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. POV no matter how many references you provide. Vegaswikian 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NewsMax Media[edit]

Completing incomplete nom by anon. No vote. Morgan Wick 05:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to have been published about in independent media. -- Koffieyahoo 05:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NewsMax is pretty well-known on various userboards where politics are discussed, notably Fark.com. 775 unique Ghits (not too shabby), and Alexa ranking is 2,294 (not bad at all). I think these guys are nutty, personally, but it does strike me as notable. Of course, a cleanup couldn't hurt, really. -- H·G (words/works) 06:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrible but notable. -- GWO
  • Keep and cleanup, notability established but written poorly. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable wingnut news source Bwithh 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bwithh. -- Whpq 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the most scurrilous, unreliable, despicable "companies" ever to blight the earth. This thing is often cited by scholarly individuals like Bill O'Reilly. However, note that this is an article about the company, and not the service. We should not allow articles on both, as the company is virtually unknown, while the service is well attested. Geogre 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's wild. Keep, move, and clean up... anything that controversial needs a crazy "criticism" section that lists well-cited inaccuracies made by the "news source"... -Aknorals 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable conservative online publication, though the article should be moved to either NewsMax or NewsMax.com. I also have a feeling that this AfD may be politically inspired. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, couple my earlier keep vote with a move vote as well, preferably to NewsMax. -- H·G (words/works) 07:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up, notable conservative news source. I may not agree with what it reports, but it fits the guidelines. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per TheFarix. Jacqui★ 20:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason to delete. Seems notable. C56C 02:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Alanne[edit]

Vanity bio of a Hollywood screenwriter. Originally made extravagant -- and false (or at least undocumented) -- claims, but when Prod'ed, those claims were deleted, leaving very little -- no awards, no big or critically acclaimed films, etc. Calton | Talk 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter:

Carlton’s comments are completely baseless and seem to rather reflect poor on-line research skills or some personal agenda. All what he calls “claims” were and are true and verifiable facts. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1209140/bio and http://www.finngatepictures.com/bios_mikko The article was merely edited for length per his suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.129.144 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - per nom. Also, don't remove AFD notices from articles. Wickethewok 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was merely edited for length per his suggestions.
  • Uh huh. My Prod comment was Vanity bio of a Hollywood screenwriter -- no awards, no big or critically acclaimed films, and IMDB doesn't back many (if not most) of the claims made -- "editing for length" ain't in it. And this shows the original claims that anon ip (presumably the same anon above) left out when he removed the Prod tag. To sum up:
  • He began his career as a researcher and story editor for Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone, and later wrote two films for the director, Ghosts of My Lai and Empire.
  • Alanne's recent screenplays include ...the time travel thriller Paradox for Touchstone, ABC and The Mark Gordon Company...
  • ...and the forensic anthropology drama The Body Farm for ABC and Touchstone Television. His other screenplays include Blood of Saints for Revolution Studios, Roman Ritual and Shadows.
  • A look at Alanne's IMDB filmography shows only Paradox --as an "annnounced" film for 2007, with no other talent credits -- and the two films allegedly written for Oliver Stone don't show up on his filmography, either. Just about every word of the anon's rebuttal is false, including "and" and "the". He couldn't even spell my name correctly. --Calton | Talk 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to participate in AFD, please register for an account, it makes it a lot easier to see what edits you have made and it gives other editors something to call you. Wickethewok 04:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the SAT might have put it, "active development:movies = unpublished:books". While half the white people in West L.A. might have scripts stuck in their desk drawers, it doesn't mean they can put those scripts on their CVs. Also, remember verifiability policy. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calton, just FYI:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117927068?categoryid=14&cs=1

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117895866?categoryid=14&cs=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-rapper25jun25,1,5729599.story?coll=la-commun-los_angeles_metro&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=3554028

http://www.chud.com/news/sept03/sept23sly.php3

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.129.144 (talk • contribs)

  • I believe the above links disprove Calton’s claims against the veracity and relevance of this article. It is pertinent to note, too, that Calton's arguments consist solely of his personal opinions and interpretations, rather than facts. There is nothing in the present version of the article that isn’t current or readily verifiable through multiple published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.129.144 (talk • contribs)
  • PLEASE sign your posts with four tildas: ~~~~ Wickethewok 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom Development Company Afghanistan[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. SynergeticMaggot 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, per Phr, I suppose, but it's not much to merge. Until the article on communications in Afghanistan has a great deal of bulk, it doesn't have that many viewers/users, and until then few people will be searching for a single consortium there. Therefore, there is little utility for a stand-alone article, and the information will be less available in isolation. Geogre 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP, nothing to merge. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Roshan (Telecom) should be added to this afd. I think the merge should consist basically of adding an external link, maybe pointing at http://www.roshan.af if there's no TDCA site. I'm indifferent to whether there's also a redirect made. Normally such a link would be spam, but this subject is so sparse that readers probably want all the info they can get. Phr (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list of criteria for companies warranting articles is biased towards the more-developed countries. A large, private company that garners little press in a country with a different model for corporations or without a significant stock exchange is still encyclopedic. Our criteria are extremely First World centric and should be changed. Williamborg 01:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think there's anything wrong with our criteria; or if anything, they're too lax. But we're allowed to make exceptions when there's a reason to do so. If there were more info in the article I could entertain the idea that this is such a case. Right now I think the main use for retaining the info is we might have some readers (e.g. US armed forces) who are going to Afghanistan for some reason and want to know what the phone situation is there. The first article they'd look at is Afghanistan, which has a subsection with a link to Communications in Afghanistan, so that's the logical place to put the info. Phr (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per williamborg, I see no harm in this article and developing countries definately have alot of what we do, it simply isn't reported.--Musaabdulrashid 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Fist of Bruce[edit]

Non notable movie. Possible redirect to Bruce Li? SynergeticMaggot 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, article explains almost nothing and nothing links to article FrogMaster 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First, the article merely says that it's a Chinese movie, which we get from the Infobox. Second, there is no indication that this is a particularly interesting or influential film, and Wikipedia is not out to duplicate IMDB. Geogre 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: it's a Bruceploitation movie (Bruceploitation itself was notable). Not sure if it's influential, but there were a lot of movies like this one trying to cash in on Bruce Lee's popularity. --ColourBurst 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this link says this film is just one of the many 70’s and 80’s films containing Bruce in the title to exploit Bruce Lee after his untimely death After reading that, I take it to mean that this film is nothing special, but then again this is a third party review of the film. So I'm not sure what to think DrunkenSmurf 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to note I got 949 google hits and 2,140 yahoo hits. I know that theyare not the be all end all, but if it will help anyone, here they are.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable movie. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I hope you're not expecting to find many google hits on a Chinese film in English, other than ones that have made it here like Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I'm still conflicted here because Bruce Li seems to be the most prolific Bruceploitation actor. However, Blind Fist of Bruce is one of his lesser films (it doesn't compare, to say, Exit the Dragon Enter the Tiger, which doesn't have an article, but should). --ColourBurst 05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre above --Khaim 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article as it doesn't need its own page, but ColourBurst's reasoning has convinced me that an annotated list of Bruceploitation films could be quite useful. Jacqui★ 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article contains an abysmal lack of content. John254 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Shot[edit]

Prodded version explicitly stated this was made up on spring break; anon removed that reference but can't save it from being a non-notable neologism. Grand total of 685 Google hits, many of which are "pike, shot" variants. Don't forget about its equally useless redirect Johnny mosely shot. Opabinia regalis 05:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neither the drink featured in the article nor any of them mentioned near the end are notable enough for any kind of encyclopedic entry. Looks like a few friends on spring break decided to make up some new drinks... or rather, drink portions. tmopkisn tlka 06:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete-let some irresponsible Ann Arbor kids have some fun. its a cultural trend in the state of Michigan— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.216.227 (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. – Avi 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UIUC Ice Arena[edit]

Prodded and deprodded. No notability established. This could be included in an article called UIUC athletic facilities, but has no standalone value. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atkins Tennis Center ~ trialsanderrors 07:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign#Student Life. We do that with all buildings that aren't regularly featured on a wide audience venue. E.g. a football stadium will be seen every week on TV during season, but the hockey rink will perhaps get a cable TV viewing, and probably not. Geogre 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Geogre. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Geogre. Green451 16:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you review other University articles, many of them have articles for every building. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is a widespread problem. Those should also generally be merged, except where the building is of national importance. — Haeleth Talk 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Geogre. — Haeleth Talk 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already merged the information under the athletics section, but I don't think this has been open long enough yet to close and perform the redirect, has it? But I think consensus may have been reached. Jacqui★ 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can perform the redirect at any time, but it's courteous to let the nomination stand for at least 24 hours before doing so. Since a redirect is non-destructive, anyone can look into the history, if assessing. I would argue that closing should not take place early, as we really should give people time to stumble in and make their arguments. I don't know of any case like this where a verdict has changed, but it's polite to allow for the possibility. Geogre 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Vegaswikian 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into UIUC article' Don't want an article for every building at every college.Edison 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Ice Arena was designed by a notable architect (Holabird and Roche, who designed Memorial Stadium on campus and Soldier Field in Chicago. The arena is a significant building, potentially eligble for National Register nomination, and home to a very popular club hockey team on campus (the rink also has ties to olympic gold-medalist Bonnie Blair, who grew up in Champaign)... the article needs to be expanded, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijustkrushalot (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D Topicscape[edit]

Advertorial-looking article whose primary sources are blogs. There is an allusion to one external review, which falls short of the "multiple non-trivial" clause of WP:SOFTWARE. Might be fixable, might not; as it is the article includes things like advice on how to get lots of ghits for a term. Ugh. Just zis Guy you know? 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Clean-up - The article may be salvageable. It definitely requires WP:NPOV attention, clean-up and expansion though. It just has an advertising feel in its present form. It may not meet the review clause for WP:SOFTWARE, but it's got enough unique ghits that it's "in the spotlight" for those looking at project management software. Niche software doesn't always make for interesting review material unless you're writing for a specific audience. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above: From WP:SOFTWARE "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece..." Author felt that Wall Street Journal met that criterion. "A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient." Ghits were to establish significance of the general area of mind mapping. Will rework. 3D being a new approach to mind and concept mapping, this seems to represent innovative software. 3D is not to provide eye candy but to solve a problem of scalability with 2D mind maps. Will rework to bring in line with 'guide to writing better articles'.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Article is useless in its present form, too spammy, and uses too many of last week's buzzwords. If someone has something encyclopedic to say about this program, they can write a new article. Phr (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. Yet another software product. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Advertisement trying real hard to be an encyclopedia article. I guess I have to take on good faith regarding the Wall Street Journal article that I can't access. Has anyone beyond the writer seen this? Tychocat 08:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OR ("I'd agree"). No objection to it being recreated (or reworked to try and save it). Yomangani 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the product is from a single product company, so applying WP:CORP would make sense, and it fails that test. In any case, the article itself does nto appear to have salvageable content. -- Whpq 13:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Tres Hermanos[edit]

Non-notable group of people, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:ORG, etc. I put a Prod tag on this, which the original author removed claiming the article passes the google test. However, this is a common spanish phrase and the large number of google hits appears to be unrelated Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - People whose primary notability is through newgrounds is pretty much an automatic deletion... Wickethewok 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Ghits is only one of a number of suggested alternative tests for notability (and this case it would look to be a bad one). Also looks to fail WP:OR - Yomangani 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Google test did not refer to Los Tres Hermanos & Co. so much as their animations. Halo vs Counter Strike, which is a somewhat broad area of discussion, has their animation as the first hit. There are many sites which have put HvsCS on the air--with or without LTH's permission. And Los Tres Hermanos, while being spanish words, is not a phrase. It simply means "The Three Brothers." Socialist Freak Boy 1:04, 22 July 2006 (CST)
    • Keep - I think that the Los Tres Hermanos Wikipedia page should stay where it is. They obviously have a big enough fan base to have one. Their Halo vs Counter Strike cartoon made one of the top lists on NewGrounds, quite a feat to pull off. Removing this page would be useless anyhow. It isn't hurting anyone. HarlequinSniper 2:24, 22 July 2006 (EST)
    • Keep - Halo vs Counterstrike is a great flashmovie, and I think it should stay. taterWRC 1:32, 22 July 2006 (CST)
    • Keep - Los Tres Hermanos & Co. are a quality animation team with a cult following, of which I am part. rov3r 2:33, 22 July 2006 (EST)
    • Keep - Los Tres Hermanos & CO has a large fan base that is continue to grow. As of late, their animations are of noteable quality and are reviewed highly. I myself am a member of their cult following. xTurnips 1:40, 22 July 2006 (CST)
    • Keep -Lost Tres Hermanos should stay where it is in wikipedia. They are reviwed and appreciated, and make excellent work. There is no sense in deleteing their entry, for people read it, and they have the right to have an entry. Their fans would hate this, and there is absoloutly NO reason in doing this, KEEP IT. As already said, it doesn't hurt anybody. Slider388 6:06, 22 July 2006 (GMT)
    • Keep - Flash animation teams should be giving the same respect as Other animation companys. Also its good to study diffrent art styles and how they work Knux990 11:52 (EST)
  • Comment The above 6 Keep votes are from probable sockpuppets, they all voted in a brief period of time, all have no other edits besides this article, and they altered the times listed in their signatures to make it look as if they voted at different times of the day than they actually did. It is likely they are the sockpuppets of the same person who was vandalizing the following article which I was involved in, and that they came to this one once the first one was Protected: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lentil (slur) --Xyzzyplugh 11:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only one way to be sure. Check the IP Addresses. And there appears to be no editing involved--they all did vote at roughly the same time, just in different time zones. Socialist Freak Boy 13:41, 22 July 2006 (CST)
  • It doesn't really matter as per policy on WP:GD - users who have no previous edits can be regarded as socks and "may be discounted during the closing process". So its up to admin discretion to decide how to take those "votes" into account if at all. Wickethewok 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I didn't notice that. The sockpuppets didn't alter the times they posted, they used different time zones. Clearly I have much to learn about sockpuppetry. --Xyzzyplugh 00:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very honest, they say 'The first animation published on Newgrounds.com. Animation was very shoddy, the plot uninspiring, and it was, in the opinion of Alex, more than worthy of the blam vote.' I am afraid they get the blam vote (whatever that might be) here unless they can demonstrate notability which I don't see yet. BlueValour 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While their first animations weren't very good, their more recent stuff is of notable quality. Trigger Happy, and Back in the USSR have excellent graphics, A Marxmas Special, No Child Left Behind, and Halo vs Counter Strike are all very humorous with witty humor. They got off to a rocky start, yes, but so do most people. Just look at Sean Connery's shoddy acting in his early career. LTH have developed a large fan base, produced many animations, and are now very recognized in the online community. Socialist Freak Boy 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are certainly not judging how good the animations are (I have never seen any of their work). This AFD is for reasons such as WP:BIO and WP:WEB. These guidelines state objective inclusion criteria. If they indeed continue to grow in popularity to the point where they may meet any inclusion criteria, I am of course willing to reconsider my opinion on "Los Tres Hermanos". Wickethewok 13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wickethewok. Dionyseus 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. `'mikka (t) 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De1337 as failing every criteria a non-notable company producing web videos can fail. -- Kicking222 01:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. -Royalguard11Talk 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non notable. Vanity article. Also because i think sock puppets have voted --Ageo020 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok. ViridaeTalk 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's hard to ignore those sock puppets: they tend to show up like funeral flies. However, the point here is that this is a vanity article on animators whose external references are simply Newgrounds. That's web mentioning web, which doesn't count, as far as I'm concerned, as validation. Beyond that, the article, complete with its bad punctuation and irregular capitalization, tells us merely that they were a bad studio and now...have more attention. Wow. Geogre 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN Danny Lilithborne 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:VAIN, WP:WEB, and WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment - I fail to see how this is a vanity article. WP:AGF It's not promoting any of their animations, nor does it seem to portray them in a shining light. It has no external links to a website which they own, it's not promoting merchandise, it merely talks about the origins and possible direction of their work and studio. Furthermore, while they're not the most famous animators to hit the scene, WP:BIO they have a very large base of viewers and a smaller--but still large--base of dedicated fans. That should seem to be some semblance of notability. Even if it isn't, it flat out states on the page that "notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)" I feel this article is approached from a neutral perspective, and can continue to grow as their organization's recognition and filmography grows. They meet notability under Large Fan Base and Name Recognition under the people section. WP:WEB As for web content, Los Tres Hermanos is being featured in an interview for a magazine titled Blue and Gold about their opinions on the upcoming next gen. systems, showing their animations are wide spread enough to get them recognized. Halo vs Counter Strike won the Daily 3rd Place Award and got Weekly 12th Place out of hundreds of thousands of animations submitted every week on newgrounds, which means they must be doing something right and are good at what they do. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. Los Tres Hermanos & Co's animations meet all the qualifications for notable web content, Los Tres Hermanos & Co themselves meet many of the qualifications for notable people. I will admit they do not meet WP:ORG standards, and they are not an organization according to wiki-standards, but I feel they're not an organization either. They are simply some people who make animations--they're good at what they do, they're getting recognized for it, but they're not an organization. They're an animation team, not a company/organization/corporation. I see no reason to delete this article. Socialist Freak Boy 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this is Socialist Freak Boy's second Keep vote. --Xyzzyplugh 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this was not so much a vote as a further explanation as to why I feel it should be kept. Besides, this is not decided by "votes" as you put them, but by the argument therein. This is not a vote, but a discussion, so why should it matter that I wish voice my opinions in greater detail? Socialist Freak Boy 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can voice your opinion as many times as you want(within reason) in an AfD debate, but you should only "vote", that is type in keep/delete/merge/etc in bold text, once. Doing so multiple times will appear to be an attempt to fool people into thinking there were more keep/delete/whatever votes than there really were. --Xyzzyplugh 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So non-notable it hurts. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AtlantaBlueSky.com[edit]

Reads like vanity. No Notability, reads like an advertisement. HellFire 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom rootology 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Judging the number of actual listeners to a podcast is something that the big corporations can't do, and yet this article is quite sure of the numbers. A quarter of a million listeners, or a quarter of a million hits or downloads? Has it been reviewed in even the local version of Creative Loafing? Advertising. Geogre 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable spam. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Ageo020 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. αChimp laudare 04:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD CARE MEDICAL, P.C.[edit]

no Google hits, should either be deleted, renamed (correct name ??), or merged Travelbird 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete as "empty": The article contains less information than a Yellow Pages listing. There is no evidence of significance even in Queens, much less the region. Geogre 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical Industries[edit]

I'm not sure that this list serves any real purpose, it should probably be converted into a category Travelbird 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. We have plenty of such lists. Rename to (oops! already exists!) merge into List of pharmaceutical companies (to match Category:Pharmaceutical companies), cleanup. `'mikka (t) 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: List already exists at a better name, and, frankly, this can be done in a better way with a category tag. Geogre 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a better list already exists --Xrblsnggt 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has been said, this list already exists. αChimp laudare 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del: it is cut and paste from Bubble tea article with name replaced. `'mikka (t) 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Chung-Hsin[edit]

Cannot be verified. I live in Taiwan and cannot find any information about this person.--KOIKA 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Feels like a hoax, and claims to be the "inventor" without evidence. If he really is the inventor, shouldn't he have patented it? --ColourBurst 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Possible confusion. The Bubble tea article mentions the inventors. `'mikka (t) 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Online[edit]

I see nothing notable about this website at all. It's Alexa ranking is just short of 900,000 meaning almost a million more sites get more traffic than it. If anyone can cite a single notable feature I'd like to hear it, as I most certainly cannot see one - Glen 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems the creator of this article (60.224.56.109) also created the now deleted vanity article Thomas Rose - the owner of cricket-online.com. As such I would safely assume the creator is the owner and this article should likely follow the same path... - Glen 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:WEB: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. Fails criteria 1,2&3. Retention would set a bad precedent. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising copy. It's all about click throughs and not about an entity that requires explanation (and how obscure would a site called that be, anyway?). Geogre 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis T. Romero[edit]

Non-notable, possible copyvio from here-> [[2]] PresN 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per PresN. In the future, I suggest taking copyright violations to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Just blank the article and slap on the {{copyvio}} template. Then list the article on the Copyright Problems subpage of the day, which is linked to on the template after you save the article. That is all you have to do. After 7 days, if no one asserts that the article is not a copyright violation, the article will be deleted without discussion. The vast majority of articles are deleted. Perhaps one or two articles out of the dozens submitted each day are kept. It is significantly less work than AfD and the copyright violation is only visible in the history before it is deleted, unlike AfD which displays the article's content so that editors can decide its fate. Finally, if the AfD decision is to keep the article, you'll have to either rewrite the article or take it to copyright problems. -- Kjkolb 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Kjkolb. -- Whpq 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf pop[edit]

The topic is already covered more extensively in Surf music. -- G0zer 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Surf music. `'mikka (t) 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I suppose that one could argue that "surf pop" is the surf music revival of the 80's, where Punk bands used surf guitar sounds and created light pop, but that's not what the article says, and I'm in favor of fumigating to get rid of subgenres. Geogre 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. -- NORTH talk 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLK Torch of Peace[edit]

Nonnotable award at one college. NawlinWiki 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedically notable Bwithh 03:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having the name of a notable person on your award doesn't necessarily make the award notable. It's just a student award at one college. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Genealogical and Heraldic Society[edit]

Not Notable; possible hoax --Brianyoumans 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-verifiable WP:V--blue520 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is highly unlikely to be brought into compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability since an altavista search for this organization yielded nothing, aside from pages on Wikipedia itself and mirrors. John254 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now it fails WP:V αChimp laudare 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanco Directory Online[edit]

Non-notable website which is only a directory of local business Whpq 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Benjamin Kowalewicz. If there are more articles on people with the last name Kowalewicz in the future, it can be made into a disambiguation page. Also, if a useful redirect can be made, I suggest that you redirect it instead bringing it to AfD. -- Kjkolb 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalewicz[edit]

Vanity page. No pages link to here. We can always create another page when there is more than one notable Kowalewicz. Mr Stephen 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only one notable Kowalewicz so far, and I see no need for a disambig page for him. -- H·G (words/works) 08:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zerk Animations[edit]

An animation outfit that gets zero Google hits, run off a website with an Alexa rank of 3 million. Fan-1967 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Noller[edit]

Appears to be a non notable academic. Article makes no assertion of notability and googling brought up nothing of interest. Artw 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Resume fails WP:BIO αChimp laudare 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy without prejudice no assertion of notability, but a real article later would be fine. Phr (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nobody in particular. Every university has dozens of "centers" and every one of them needs a director, so just being Director of the Something Center isn't grounds for notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Homestarmy 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nealenews[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. The article is very bias towards Nealenews. Nealenews is not a media outlet, it is a website. It is not up-to-the-minute, it only gets updated a few times a day. This article reads as an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article. FullSmash26 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Spam. Artw 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyco Rebound[edit]

I don't think this individual model of remote control car warrants an article of it's own - WP:NN RC Car DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 06:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, me neither. If there were more info for collectors, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Terrible article that needs a cleanup, but is notable IMO. 10k Google hits, I remember it existing and think it could be turned into a decent article by someone who knew about it Halo 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, normally I would recommend that an article like this should be deleted, but if there is to be any articles on remote control cars, this would be one to include given its apparent popularity. You can check out the Google results (checking for unique results will not work with so many results, Google will cut them off after a few hundred) and find pictures of it on Google Images. They, and their parts, are also being bought and sold by individuals after the apparent discontinuation of most versions. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated, implied, or attempted. A list for the sake of listing. Tychocat 08:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It isn't because of notability that it should be deleted. I'm sure that Kjkolb is correct and that this is an important model. However, the article as it stands now is a catalog listing. There was this model, then this one, then the other one, then another. I.e. there should be no G4 prejudice against the creation of a properly discursive article implied by my delete vote. Geogre 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it should be cleaned up not erased Yuckfoo 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Monkey show[edit]

The subject matter is not significant enough to merit having its own article. Sufficient information can be provided in other articles about Invader Zim, the show it appears in. Timzor 08:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So everything should have its own article? Every single character that ever appeared even once on every cartoon should have its own article? I disagree. -- Kicking222 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Zimcruft. -- Kicking222 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Oh, heck no. No. Not small featured backgrounds on small shows with small viewerships, and not small bits on big shows with huge viewerships, either. When Wikipedia does get to that day when it has everything, we'll call. Geogre 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. We seriously don't need things like this. Fancruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, delete definitely cruft, but I like Invader Zim. Phr (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey, I'm a fan too, or else I wouldn't have found this. But it's highly superfluous.
  • Delete without biting, please. Vizjim 09:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed With A Kiss Presents[edit]

Also listing the following for nomination:

Despite having some bands of note on their client list, this is a concert production company that appears to fail WP:CORP, with just 27 unique Google hits and an Alexa ranking below 1.5m. The above two articles appear to be vanity pieces for the two founders of the company and fail WP:BIO. All seem likely hard to verify. ~ Matticus78 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hey there, I am the author of these articles. I'm new to adding material to this site, and because I read a bunch of the pre-post information, i didn't think i was doing anything wrong... I realize citing is important, and I could go through and do it given the abundance of press each topic has received, but I just don't have the time to make this a reality. If that makes the topics moot, then so be it, I just thought people might want to know about the subject of these articles. The band I manage, You Say Party! We Say Die! has a very detailed Wikipedia listing, my good friend Dennis Lyxzen has his own Wikipedia listing, my colleague Frank Kozik, a poster artist and toy maker, has his own Wikipedia listing... and so I was thinking my articles might be relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danivachon (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep All – I moved from Toronto to Vancouver one year ago, and have been an active participant (on stage and in the audience) in the independent music scene in Canada since 1996. I can say for certain that, in the Vancouver indie scene, there is no production company larger or more prolific than Sealed With a Kiss. A vote against the inclusion of Sealed With a Kiss is a vote against the inclusion of independent music in Vancouver. According to the city's most popular concert tracker, Live Music Vancouver, Sealed With a Kiss currently has 22 shows booked, and 159 in the back catalog [3], a record that few of these production companies can boast. Further to my vote to keep the Sealed With a Kiss entry, I believe that the contribution that Jason Lajeunesse and Dani Vachon have made to Sealed With a Kiss, and independent music in Vancouver in general, should qualify their articles for retention. Somewhat lacking in style and structure, however, they could use some editing... --Steveluscher 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD discussion is about notability and whether an article is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, not about whether the subject of the article is generally worthwhile. Statements like "A vote against the inclusion of Sealed With a Kiss is a vote against the inclusion of independent music in Vancouver" are a both emotive and specious in this context; the question of whether an article should be kept or deleted should be based on WP policies and guidelines. The lineup of artists listed is certainly significant and most, if not all, of them are notable. It's not clear to me whether a concert production company involved with them becomes notable or not, so at this point I abstain. Paddles TC 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable production company. --Ageo020 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Matticus78. -- Kjkolb 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, fails WP:CORP and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all vanity/promo. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. This is really obnoxious. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SWAK Presents and Jason Lajeunesse as vanity/nn, unencyclopedic. Merge Dani Vachon to You Say Party! We Say Die! (i.e. with a mention in that article), if appropriate. Danivachon's reference to the articles Dennis Lyxzen and Frank Kozik as "listings" indicates non-understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:ENC), not a business directory, and it does not have "listings".

    I suggest review and possible AfD of the Dennis Lyxzen and Frank Kozik articles as well. Dennis Lyxzen is connected to a definitely notable band with its own article, but his notability on his own is less clear. Frank Kozik's just seems marginal all around. Phr (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am/Pm Boss[edit]

Article has minimal content and no assertion of notability Misterrick 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The current vote count for this discussion is 4 votes to delete the Am/Pm Boss article and 3 votes to keep the Am/Pm Boss article.

  • Delete, NN monster truck. Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, truck was featured in several magazines and was frequently on television in it's heyday. I did not create the article but I can (and will) expande it when I get the time. Arenacale 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. I get 16 Ghits, mostly photo listings. No multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I checked the video cited by Arenacale and it's unclear if it was broadcast, or how widely. Looking at the apparent magazine citation, I note there's no publication date given - how old is this thing? Taken in context with the 16 Ghits, I have real problems with an article about a non-notable former monster truck. Tychocat 09:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Truck existed from roughly 1987 to 1991. The television broadcasts are from ESPN.Arenacale 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a previous AFD] concerning some currently defunct trucks I felt were non-notable, feel free to draw your own conclusions from it.Arenacale 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete --Yunipo 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes our guidelines for sports notability. Recury 13:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if there is a source found for the assertion that Am/Pm Boss was the first Monster Truck driven by a woman. That would establish a degree of notability. Agne 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to my vote above. While I couldn't find a note about Am/Pm Boss and the first woman driver, I did find this note about Bigfoot having the first woman monster truck driver. Of course, this is a site ran by the Bigfoot people and I could couldn't substantiate it with an additional source. If the Bigfoot claim can be shown true then I would see no reason to keep Am/Pm Boss and would change my vote to delete. Agne 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am/Pm Rocket[edit]

Article has minimal content and no assertion of notability Misterrick 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The current vote count for this discussion is 4 votes to delete the Am/Pm Rocket article and 2 votes to keep the Am/Pm Rocket article.

  • Delete: NN monster truck. Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as with Am/Pm Boss (it's teammate), this truck was featured in several magazines and on television frequently in it's heyday. Also one of the first USA trucks in the UK, and jumpstarted the sport in that country. Article can and will be expanded when I get the time (although I did not create it).Arenacale 04:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. I get 16 Ghits, mostly photo listings. No multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I checked the video cited by Arenacale and it's unclear if it was broadcast, or how widely. Looking at the apparent magazine citation, I note there's no publication date given - how old is this thing? Taken in context with the 16 Ghits, I have real problems with an article about a non-notable former monster truck. Tychocat 09:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mistakenly pasted my nom per the am/pm Boss article here. Mind you, on examination my reasoning remains the same, but the two are obviously not strictly interchangeable. I get only 14 Ghits here, and one old magazine citation. Tychocat 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Hamers[edit]

No indication that being president of "Zone 1.1" of FIDE is important in any way. No sources, other than User:Sam Sloan, whose opinion it must be said is not especially neutral. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:BIO, WP:NN, WP:V etc. (I organize a poker game at my house every couple weeks; do I get an article?) ;). --Wine Guy Talk 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom Talk[edit]

Delete. Not a notable website as per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1.6 million. Prod removed by anon with comment of "1/3 of a million hits is more than notable enough see talk page, site's part of a growing trend, as noted". However, merely being part of a growing trend does not confer notability. ... discospinster talk 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curious --I checked the other fandom type of related sites, as I didn't want to post something only to get it deleted (no purpose in that) and found some more obscure entries than mine, thinking it would be acceptable. I should say, sorry for deleting the tags the first time, but I didn't know how else to get to the attention of whoever tagged it (I'm new). Point is, why is this objectionable when sites like "The lurkers guide to babylon 5" and glarkware as well as blogs like realityreel and fandomwank are permissable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenem (talk • contribs)
      • The Creator for Numb3rs has been a frequent visitor over at Fandom talk. She'll often correct incorrect spoilers or comment on the recaps -- if that helps. Again, I wasn't trying to overstep any boundaries. Just asking. Ravenem
  • Delete WP is not a web directory/index. Having the show's creator as a regular visitor doesn't automatically confer notability in my view, and the article doesn't make any other assertions of notability. Paddles TC 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins Hotel Islamabad[edit]

WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... looks like an ad for a hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan that has not even begun construction yet. Canley 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This isn't too far into the future--In fact, it says construction is going to begin this year. Is this building really a big deal? If so, I would vote support, but if it's just some office-building, I don't think so. AdamBiswanger1 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would serve as the "country’s tallest building". --Porqin 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is all moot, as this article is a copyvio, and has been listed as such. -Harmil 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyvio. Future building are not a reason to be deleted. Some of these are notable. Not sure if this one would meet that standard. Vegaswikian 06:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball. It's sill a "concept", apparently not a done deal. --Xrblsnggt
  • Delete: A crystal ball copyvio. Geogre 11:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its a concept! Vegaswikian 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mawrid[edit]

This seems like a promotional page for the website. I found no evidence that it is anything other than an Ahmadi promotional site. The contact information goes to Lahore Pakistan, home of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, an Islamic revivalist community. I suggest deletion, but someone familiar with the subject might be able to change my mind. Cuñado - Talk 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This intitution has nothing to do with Ahmadi movement. This institute is being run by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, who is a famous Sunni scholar in Pakistan. --SaadSaleem 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not an expert in the area, but the article does suggest some sort of notability. Unless people who are more familiar with the subject matter indicate that it isn't actually notable, I'd err on the side of caution and keep, especially given WP:CSB. Paddles TC 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it feels notable, but only just. That said, I'm hardly well-up on Pakistan. BigHaz 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep looks like a genuine article to me. Not advertising or vanity. Wikipedians in Lahore/Pakistan should probably know about this more. --Ageo020 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Cafora[edit]

NN. 2 ghits for "Louie Cafora" Computerjoe's talk 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lufthansa Heist, which does mention Cafora. hateless 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unreferenced and possible hoax. If he was real, wouldn't he appear in at least one reliable source related to the real Lufthansa Heist (as opposed to any of the fictionalised versions)? The Lufthansa Heist page on WP is a mess and not based on reliable sources, so I don't feel comfortable redirecting there. Paddles TC 13:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Tau Omega[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, and has only one or two contributers. JD[don't talk|email] 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keepchanged below and rewrite. They have 15 chapters, which I suppose is enough for an article. The material seems to be mostly taken from a page on their website. I'll contact the posters and see if they hold copyright and can properly relicense. Incidentally, that an article has only one or two contributors is not a rationale for deletion.--Chaser T 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that a low number of contributers isn't rationale for deletion, but as I don't even know about Lambda Tau Omega, I figured it might just be something the creator made up, or that it might be something unnotable. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it took me five minutes on their website to confirm that this isn't something made-up (there are several chapter websites and it's listed on a university's website). You might research this first on the web before making an AfD nom. Notability is another matter. 15 chapters isn't very many, so I may change my vote to delete if arguments sway me.--Chaser T 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I guess I was a bit quick to put this one up. I'll keep that in mind before I put any more articles up for deletion. Thanks. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Exists, but doesn't appear particularly notable to me. I don't want to sound deletist, but this one looks like it could just clog search results for greek letters, an effect that would be magnified if every second frat/sor house treated this as a precedent for their own page. Paddles TC 13:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at a couple of other Greek org pages. Many of them have hundreds of chapters, but one had as few as 107. I'm not sure where the bright line should be, so I'm not going to try to draw it. The only other distinction I see is that this organization's webpage is on geocities, instead of their own domain, which isn't really a bright line, either. However, the lack of sources and the copyright issues push this over the edge, so I'm changing my vote to delete.--Chaser T 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an old debate. Individual chapters are not individual articles. If there is a desperate need for the brothers and sisters, they can put it into the #Student life section of the university. Pyramid scheme operators are less insistent on self-promotion than fraternity houses. Geogre 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not about an individual chapter of a sorority, but about a national sorority, or at least one apparently aspiring to be national (most chapters are in New Jersey, but it also has chapters in Florida and Illinois). Student organizations which exist at multiple schools often are notable. I don't get to say that too often. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in my opinion, sororities and fraternities have to be exceptional to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, not just existing at a little over a dozen schools. -- Kjkolb 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, extremely minor sorority, article reads like an ad. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weasely vanity article for non-notable organization. --Xrblsnggt 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's written from the first person. WP:VAIN, WP:ORG αChimp laudare 04:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del WP:CSD A7 (vanity). `'mikka (t) 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhja[edit]

Non-notable seems like vanity. No record, not even signed a record label HellFire 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kjwan[edit]

Probable self-promotion, non notable Robertsteadman 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- not sure if it's self-promotion or just plain promotion, but it appears non-notable, and fails to asserrt sufficient notability. -- ArglebargleIV 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. `'mikka (t) 01:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although a Filipino band such as this could be notable under WP:MUSIC without my being aware of that fact, this article doesn't make a clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETED as a geneological entry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motzko[edit]

Nonnotable, As the article says, Motzko is a relatively unpopular Polish ,and sometimes Ukrainian surname. The only justification for such a page would be for disambiguation of people with that name, and the only person listed does not link to an active entry. Hackwrench 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I used this page to gain information, which proved very useful to me. I return to see the deletion reccomendation, which I was surprised at. It is a useful page which could be improved further, but it's not like it can be confused with anything else - so I say keep it. Ray harris1989 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn nonverifiable, probably original research. `'mikka (t) 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no article for my last name, which is a lot more common, or most names, except as DAB pages. Fan-1967 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die or Beat a Board[edit]

Not encyclopedic, only linked to by one page, and fails Google test. I abstain. Addaone 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - None of the reasons listed in this nomination violate official Wikipedia policy, "non-encyclopeic" being an objective term and useless unless specified. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero google hits on this which don't link back to wikipedia. Non-existent expression. Unsourced article which violates Wikipedia:No_original_research. Basically this article is about two people taking turns playing a video game, which is about as encylopedic as "two people taking turns driving a car" or "can't take a shower till your sister comes out of the bathroom". --Xyzzyplugh 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. the WP:NOR citation explains it all. I withdraw my keep. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TicketCity.com[edit]

Voilates NPOV, sounds like a marketing message, in fact, the primary editor and creator are the marketing manager of the company. Removing most of the content would leave little encyclopedic content. MECU≈talk 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a smaller ticket agency. Fails WP:CORP. None of the linked articles really establishes them as notable (especially the one that says "You can buy tickets for this event from..."). Fan-1967 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • del vanity. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. All but one of the references to news articles appear to be bogus. (An article about the industry is not justification for your notability) --Xrblsnggt 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Shuffle[edit]

del neologism. `'mikka (t) 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Okay, so it was used in a movie; it's still a pointless neologism. -- Captain Disdain 07:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

// Even if it is Encyclopedia should include everything

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and merge any useful information (which would need to be rewritten) into the article on the film. BigHaz 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism used in only one particular movie. --Metropolitan90 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yomangani 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting problem: there is a song by this name, and it has been used both in grifts and in music for a long time. If we're looking solely at the article, delete, as the article is incorrect (not a neologism) and trivial (a joke from a movie). No G4 prejudice against a proper article in the future. Geogre 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there much that can be said about it other than that it is a jazz song first recorded by Bennie Moten's Kansas City Orchestra on 1926-12-13? Uncle G 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not by me. :-) I don't want to jinx anyone else, though. After all, there is a mania for song articles, and this song, at least, has some cultural resonance -- more than most of the disposable ditties produced by pop tarts these days. Geogre 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy (program)[edit]

No references, I ran several google searches on this and found nothing that fit. Name of article creator, Ahpro, looks suspiciously like the Andrew Hart mentioned on the page. Reads like an advert, but since the web search turns up nothing, I'm thinking a hoax. Irongargoyle 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried every combination I could think of for Andrew Hart, Iggy, AI, and Artificial Intelligence and I got exactly zero google hits for this thing. It may not be a hoax, but it certainly doesn't appear to be notable. IrishGuy talk 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonverifiable. `'mikka (t) 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep on hacking, Kid. (someday you will understand why this had to be deleted) --Xrblsnggt 04:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sango123 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie[edit]

Prod was removed, now afd, nn notable, fails WP:MUSIC All Music Guide, no Alexa traffic, advertising Ávril ♦ ʃáη 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did not google [4].--Ávril ʃáη 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you google Sylvie band it does. --- Diehard2k5 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there is no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Barely, maybe passes WP:MUSIC (have 2 albums, and their label listed claims to be, more or less, a "major indie label" (per WP:MUSIC)). But it is arguable, depending how notable the label really is, and the page is also written like a promotion. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 albums, indie label, major national tour, won CBC Galaxie contest, meets WP:NMG -- Samir धर्म 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Valoem talk 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zyman Group[edit]

Advert for company that fails WP:CORP. Not much more to say about it. Non-informative company link at page bottom. KarenAnn 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising and managementconsultantcruft. Eddie.willers 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Massmato 16:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have partly rewritten it, establishing its notability and removing advert-like parts. Aside from its chairman/founder being very notable and it being listed by an independent magazine, I found in my searches that the majority stake purchase by MDC Partners and the appointment of its current CEO were each mentioned in at least 4 print magazines and newspapers (only some trivially). It is also involved with an institute at a major university. It has major clients. —Centrx→talk • 04:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for non-notable comapany. The hyperlinked references: one is an unrelated article about blogs and the other is just a listing of companies with no other information. The one semi-legitimate article is about the company being bought out. (hardly something to brag about.) --Xrblsnggt 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:CORP -- Whpq 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NELSAP[edit]

Someone brought this to my attention following the deletion decision reached for the nearly identical ALSAP here. NN group/website, delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's the top Google listing for "NELSAP". It's a very active site. - DavidWBrooks 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I only get 60 original results of about 87,800 on Google (although the numbers vary slightly on each search). Also, many of the results are for Nile Equatorial Lakes Investment Program. Finally, the article does not make any assertions of notability. -- Kjkolb 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yanksox 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in this form: It sounds like an interesting project, but that only means that it can be mentioned in another article. The organization is not well known enough to require explanation nor active enough to have generated top Google hits. Therefore, however laudable they may be, they're not encyclopedic on their own. Geogre 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre.--SarekOfVulcan 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expanded the article slightly to give a better sense of the group's reach. I really think it is of sufficient size, reach and notability among ski fans and historians of New England to be an article; I have, among other things, seen it cited in newspaper articles (including once in the NY Times) as an authoritative source of the contraction of the Northeastern skiing industry over the past two decades. - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Housden[edit]

Another senior civil servant. As we've seen here at AfD, civil servants are non-notable enough to have their own page. -Royalguard11Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything particular about civil servants in WP:BIO, exactly what part does it fail? Catchpole 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the equivalent or equal of a British Secretary of State. He's an unelected subordinate who is supposed to advise the minister and manage part of the civil service. The minister makes policy decisions (in combination with No.10 policy unit)and advises the prime minister Bwithh 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And ministers come and go, whilst the permanent secretaries remain. Maybe you should become familiar with Yes, Minister. Catchpole 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Minister is not an accurate or useful account of how the UK government works. The Thick of It comes across as more authentic, but again should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Bwithh 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret Thatcher, on Yes, Minister: "its closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power has brought me hours of pure joy" [5]. Catchpole 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elected politicians are notable, non-elected appointed civil servants are not unless they've been involved in a big scandal or something. -Royalguard11Talk 00:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what this comes down to is your opinion on what makes someone notable. My view is that running a large government department bestows a large enough amount of notability to be worthy of an entry here. The requirement for civil servants to practice political neutrality does not negate their notability, again in my view. Catchpole 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A senior civil servant who did anything notable would implicitly be in deep trouble. -- GWO
  • Keep per Catchpole.--Nydas 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Permanent secretaries are highly notable within the British system of government. They have a strong influence on government decisions. Any other Permanent Secretaries who were deleted should be reconsidered. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please permanent secretaries like this are notable Yuckfoo 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Hill Church[edit]

Delete. Non-notable church. ... discospinster talk 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I fail to see which criterion you see could catergorise this as NN under, pls explain, as pls take deletion more seriously and list your reasons why this should be deleted, WE CANNOT READ YOUR MIND -- Librarianofages 02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a non-notable church. What more do I have to say? ... discospinster talk 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable, and I see no particular claim to notability in this article. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands of churches in the US. This is one of them. Fan-1967 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Metropolitan90 and Fan-1967. This is just a single church, rather than a group of churches or a denomination. Also, it has only been in existence since 1988.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjkolb (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, just a local church. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I see nothing to distinguish this from the many religious buildings around the world. By the way, is it just me who finds the phrase Theologically Pure somewhat chilling? Markb 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Metropolitan90, Fan-1967 and Kjkolb. Stormscape 13:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any building, company, or person merely doing its job is, by its nature, not set apart from the rest, not "notable." This church sounds like a fine place serving the Lord, but it has nothing really that sets it apart, that marks it as special, from all the other churches. Further, the article indicates that it is non-denominational, but that seems to mean Congregational rather than ecumenical. Such wobbly terminology is distinctly unhelpful. The church is expanding, which is nice, but not really significant. Geogre 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre et al. If only we could be this sensible about schools... — Haeleth Talk 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 12:41Z

THE IMDB[edit]

Non-notable PHPBB website on .tk domain that uses the same abbreviation as The Internet Movie Database. -Satori (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#THE IMDB for the deletion review of this article. -- Scientizzle 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that The IMDB has been deleted 4 times and is now protected. -- Scientizzle 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Does not meet WP:WEB. It's delving into WP:VAIN/WP:SPAM range, too, as the article creator shares a name with the site founder. -- Scientizzle 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Total Posts: 979 Total Members: 44". Fails WP:WEB by miles. Fan-1967 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB (I Must Delete Bullsh*t) Completely and utterly non-notable. Fails WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, etc. Not even worth a redirect to the real IMDb. -- Kicking222 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability has been made. --DarkAudit 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:WEB, also Vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable website just created 2 months ago with few if none users --Ageo020 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Kicking222. Danny Lilithborne 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't even come close to meeting WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. Speedy this if this is similar to any of the deleted versions. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising --Xrblsnggt 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for having Total Members: 44. Punkmorten 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The entity isn't close, but it's also a case of cybersquatting. Let's not reward the errorspace engineers. Geogre 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Zatch Bell! characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde and Eido[edit]

Prod removed. Page is better since then (was empty), but this still doesn't warrant it's own page. These characters are not even mentioned on the show's page, so they hardly need their own. If someone more familiar with the show thinks anything here is worth merging, I wouldn't object, except that most of this writing is rather pov anyway. I'm assuming since they aren't even listed under characters on that page now, they probably aren't very major, but I don't know the show.-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del original research, fancruft. `'mikka (t) 01:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are worth merging. I am familiar with the show. -Myalysk
    • You may want to review the original research rules, linked above, and avoid creating more such pages instead of inserting info into existing pages that have no info on the characters. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect to Zatch Bell! characters. This editor has a bad habit of cluttering Zatch Bell and Bobobo-bo-related articles with unnecessary info. Danny Lilithborne 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So they are mentioned there... That's odd, I could have sworn I read some article about characters from this show, in addition to the main article, and couldn't find either of them. Maybe there's another one... About redirects though, is anyone going to be actually searching for "hyde and eido"? Seems more likely someone would just be looking for one name in the search box. Adding a link from the Hyde disambig page and.. I dunno, nothing at Eido, maybe make that a redirect. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a fan of the show too, even when I nominated the above article for deletion. Now I see it's better to have a big article for all the mamodo characters. Looking back, it seems that some editor had originally created a bunch of mamodo/bookkeeper pair articles, and they all got merged into one. (Myalysk tried to revive Kolulu and Lori as well.) Danny Lilithborne 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think they should be deleted because there is enough info on them for them to have an article. I also think characters like Kido and Dr. Riddles, Bari and Gustav, Ted and Jeed, Laila and Albert, Earth and Elly, Penny and Uri, and Kolulu and Lori should their own page because they play MAJOR important roles in the series. -

Myalysk

      • I haven't seen the entire series yet, but I think you're overplaying the importance of these characters, especially Kolulu (she only appears in one episode, just because she's the reason Zatch wants to become king doesn't make her major). The characters that presently have articles have enough information on them to warrant an article. Out of the mamodo/bookkeeper pairs you listed, the only one that I believe warrants their own article is Kido/Dr. Riddles, and I've been in fact thinking about doing that, but I don't know enough first-hand information to do that yet. Danny Lilithborne 23:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well for Kido and Dr. Riddles, you can start with their stats, mention the majestic twelve, use references from episodes 49-50, watch the show during the devolo ruins saga (ep. 58-?), or use info from these sites:
  • GASH!!
  • Moge!
  • Golden Gash

And at least provide mini info for each encountered mamodo that doesn't have any info or at least enough info. Example: Donpocchu & Goman: One of the weak mamodo that was quickly defeated by Bari. Myalysk

      • No. The article is cluttered enough as it is. Danny Lilithborne 07:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ALL I WANT IS SOMETHING NEW TO HAPPEN IS THIS ZATCH BELL! ARTICLE!!....DAMN!!!

Gerohoshi 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. An article with the same content, Irish Earls of Dublin, was deleted as a result of an AfD nomination. If you disagree with the result, please take your case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please do not recreate the article, whether it is under the same name or not. -- Kjkolb 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackers of Carrick Blacker Earls of Dublin.[edit]

Similar to already deleted article, recent (re)creation. See [6]. Possibly a speedt candidate, but unsure, so bringing it here.Hornplease 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy-n[edit]

non-notable gaming website, speedy delete tag removed by author Travelbird 00:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction (disambiguation)[edit]

del. Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages are for navigation between pages that would under certain circumstances could nave the same name. This page is a chaotic list of articles whose title use the word "reconstruction". At first I tried to clean it up, but soon noticed that I could not leave even two entries here, not to say three, as indicated by dab style guide. `'mikka (t) 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I understand Mikka's concern, but I could see people forgetting what some of the things listed are and just searching for "reconstruction". Also, I don't think this page is harmful, since it is at a "(disambiguation)" name, and therefore not displacing an article that should be there. -- Kjkolb 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a stub article for Reconstruction (criminal investigation). Grutness...wha? 03:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reconstruction is a common term, so such an extensive disambiguation page is necessary. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cordesat. αChimp laudare 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the word "reconstruction" is used commonly in daily lives. It may refer to many topics from engineering to medical. Useful dab page. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Disambiguation is for anything the user might type into a search box and hit "Go", not just for articles with the same exact title. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 12:29Z
  • Keep per Cordesat. (I love the first history entry though:"sure im missing something" ). Yomangani 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune some of the less related items included. There appear to be an unusually high number of pages that should not be there for a disambiguation page. Erechtheus 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kjkolb. --Elonka 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as the article contains no assertion of notability and consists mostly external links.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Ward[edit]

Little content, links are all vanity links that cannot be verified, does not deserve own biography in line with WP:BIO and WP:BAND --M0RHI 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete clearly vanity: {{db-bio}}. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 and as A1. There's no information there. What is there is nearly gibberish, and there are no claims for notability, only "great success." Good for him. I'm glad someone out there is experiencing success. Geogre 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's definitely a notable musician, so the article should stay. The article just needs to be rewriten to add more content. There are plenty of other musician pages which are only one sentence long, too. Sandro67 03:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A1 and CSD-A7, empty article that only contains external links, with no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Cordesat. I've added the tag. αChimp laudare 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo (gorilla)[edit]

I didn't want to go with a {{db-bio}} here (note also that's normally reserved for people), but Enzo is not yet notable enough to have an article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Actually I did see db-bio used once when someone created an article about their cocker spaniel, but this one has an assertion of notability. Not enough of one, however. Many animals are born in zoos and become popular local attractions. Fan-1967 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was just joking a bit as the template doesn't mention animals, but rather people specifically. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the admin was stretching a bit on that one, but realistically it was a WP:SNOW situation anyway. Fan-1967 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I couldn't find any sources on Enzo. Let's face it, we really don't know much about him, and I don't buy that an endangered animal born in captivity necessarily needs to meet much of a threshold of notability. We have a pretty good article on Tai Shan (panda). Mangojuicetalk 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cant find any English language sources but there is plenty in Swedish. Enzo isnt just a "local" attraction but somewhat of a national celebrity. Kålmorden is the biggest zoo in Sweden and Enzo's birth had major media coverage.svennex
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson (Rhinoceros)[edit]

An better attempt to assert notability is made here than with his friend Enzo, but Nelson is still not yet notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A rhino who just lived 9 days is not good enough to have an article. Huge media coverage didn't result in any google hits except answers which just has the same wikipedia article --Ageo020 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I would support this article if we could have some sources. My web search turned up nothing. Mangojuicetalk 02:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These are negative results. Rhinos are very, very hard to breed in captivity. One that survives to mating age would be notable. The furore created over the efforts to save the baby's life are now ancient history, and there is no indication that it has had a lasting effect. Delete for that reason: the subject is not inherently notable, and the stir caused has not left a mark. Geogre 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The media coverage was in Swedish, and unless you search using Swedish keywords, you won't find anything (or not much anyway). Try replacing "rhinoceros" with one of the words "noshörning", "noshörningen", "noshörningsunge", or "noshörningsungen". up+l+and 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tups, I am absolutely sure that you're right. The question is whether this is a good article for the .en Wikipedia. Since the rationale boils down, at this point, to "was a major cultural happening," it's a fair question to look for effects of that furore, to ask if it passed from "in the news" to "historical event." It's therefore somewhat fair to ask if English references exist to justify an entry in an English language encyclopedia. Geogre 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree in principle. In my view, Wikipedia should have a global scope regardless of language version. And the lack of English-language sources (or at least easily available or googlable sources) is actually a problem with many obscurish topics of real historical importance. up+l+and 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Lee[edit]

Tiny article about a member of Before Dark, a group that meets WP:MUSIC but just barely. Contested prod. I doubt most the material is verifiable. Google search turned up a tv.com entry (unreliable; anyone can edit it), and some forum threads, and the CV of Mia's former tutor [7]. Delete Mangojuicetalk 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Ageo020 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site confirms everything author said: freewebs.com/only_mia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.69.127.121 (talk • contribs) .
  • Do NOT DELETE If this person is fighting so hard to keep the page alive, let ti stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.16.84.21 (talk • contribs) .
  • Should not be deleted. Information is verifiable, as it was all taken from the pamphlet that came with her CD. She thanked her younger siblings, Dana and Autumn, and her mother Michelle Lee, whom she explained was her manager. Also, in the pamphlet she is listed as Mia "Theodore" Lee. I took this as a play on the three chipmunks, as Arike was listed as Alvin and Jeni was listed under the name Simon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiaz (talk • contribs)
Note: first edit. Mangojuicetalk 18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverifiable. The author may be right, but there is no proof and no method of obtaining it. Were it to be verifiable, the biography itself does not meet the minimum threshold. Geogre 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Article can be fattend up and neutralized to meet code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.16.84.21 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note to closing admin: I suspect the anons and Indiaz are the same user; if you look at their contributions, none of them added their comments at the bottom. The coincidence is too much for me to assume they're different. Mangojuicetalk 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I imagine the verifiability claims might be overcome, but I don't think she is independently notable. --Karnesky 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-redirected to Mailbomb. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letterbomb[edit]

Unnotable song. Not common Wiki practice to have articles for every song on an album. Also, the letterbomb (device) article is being pushed aside when it has more revelance. Gold Stur 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything verifiable and useful to American Idiot (album). Use the letterbomb page as a redirect to mailbomb. I will change the letterbomb (device) page to one now. GassyGuy 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge informative parts with American Idiot (album). Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there be anything worth merging Lurker say/said 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without merge American Idiot was one of the most notable albums of 2004/2005, and for other albums of similar note (How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, All That You Can't Leave Behind, just from the Grammy Award for Best Rock Album list) a common practice is to split out the songs from the main article; for an average, run of the mill album I would agree with nom, but for albums considered to be groundbreaking/of great note I disagree with his reasoning. Right now the American Idiot album page needs to have material merged out, not in. This article has been on my mental "to-do" list for a while; I can't do anything with it until Friday, but I'll work on it then to solve the problems with verifiability that this article suffers from. Captainktainer * Talk 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the album is notable doesn't mean that each song is, and I don't see anything in this article that couldn't be put in the album's article. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without merge American Idiot is a huge album, and because it is a rock opera it should have all the songs covered. I feel there is enough information in there, and this is one of the turning points of the whole album. I feel that all of the songs deserve a page because there is enough information and it is important to understand each of the aspects of the album. Orfen 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and Do not Keep. Vegaswikian 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without merge per Captainktainer and Orfen - keep and expand, don't delete. We're trying to expand this encyclopedia of useful content, and this certainly is. --FlyingPenguins 05:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without merge This song should certainly have its own article, for the reasons discussed, however, as a mediation between both sides, perhaps this should be changed to Letterbomb (song), and Letterbomb (device) could just become Letterbomb.mikey 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a 16 lines article about a song who is not even a single and was released less than 2 years! Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. This is never going to hold up.  RasputinAXP  c 11:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nourhaghighi[edit]

Previous version nominated and deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nourhaghighi. Can't speedy it as a repost because this is a different long, incoherent rant than the last one. Earlier article was a couple chapters from his autobiography. This is a (slightly) shorter version of his autobiography as an Iranian Army officer under the Shah, followed by a long rant against the Canadian government. (Author's User page has more of the same.) Per closing admin's comment on the last one, "it's hard to find a policy it doesn't contravene in some way." Fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, can not be Verified from Reliable Sources, and there's no indication he's really Notable to begin with. Google primarily returns his posting of the same material in various forums, with a few other reports of his lawsuits against the government and his neighbors. Fan-1967 03:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. John254 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect with extreme prejudice per previous AfD. Still fails WP:BIO and pretty much everything else mentioned in the nom. --Kinu t/c 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, someone please check the author's contributions... there's some serious propagandalizing fun going on here, so some housekeeping is definitely needed. --Kinu t/c 04:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of the article was cited as a source for both current events and the British/American war of 1812 in (vandalized) changes to Toronto (a very long lifespan). User also seems to be making questionable changes to various other articles. --Brat32 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Original research at best, family mythology at worst. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was early closure/speedy keep; last nomination was two days ago. While the deletion policy dictates that most followup nominations come after a pure consensus; this is a controversial AfD series that needs time to settle before another AfD is given — especially since proposals have been made on the keep side. — Deckiller 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape armour[edit]

- Andeh 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They fail WP:NOT? Which part? "Wikipedia is not a game guide"? Could you please provide an example or examples from the article that violate this? Also, can you please prove that these are rewrites of articles on RuneScape.com? If they're rewrites, they should be {{copyvio}}ed. And WP:OR doesn't apply here: this information is derived from the game, just as information about television shows are derived from the program itself. And could you please provide a link to the page that says to delete articles with a PoV? Thanks. Hyenaste (tell) 09:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hyenaste and will say Wholehearted KEEP ALL. → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 20:18, Friday June 7 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Except Smithing (RuneScape), these have all been nominated before. The results for all but cooking were no consensus. Cooking resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrafting keep, so I'm voting Speedy Keep on cooking, and no vote on the others (for now.) αChimp laudare 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give your thoughts and opinions on why it should be kept, just because previous AfDs didn't gain consensus, it isn't really a reason for it to be kept.--Andeh 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he is only referring to the cooking article which did gain consensus to keep. Hyenaste (tell) 08:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regardless of previous AfD discussions, these do not belong in this encyclopedia. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and transwiki to RuneScape wiki. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-AfD ended last week, give time for proposed edits to take place.- Merlin Storm 07:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This time last week, smithing was AfDed. I went ahead and merged it into RuneScape skills, but someone said "that's not process; wait for the afd to end" and reverted it back. Now, two days later, before someone got around to re-reverting it, it's up for deletion again. What's the logic behind that? On that note, is this even allowed? Can someone really just nominate an article for deletion over and over week after week? Eventually, even if by chance, a consensus will be reached to delete. Hyenaste (tell) 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Random events is just a list, whilst I can see that they should be mentioned somewhere, listing every random event and detailing what actually happens does not seem useful to someone trying to get a feel for the game. The other articles are examples of scrappy stubs which IMHO don't need individual pages and encourage fancruft padding. I'd suggest that the wiki editors repeat the success of the main RS page by concentrating on the larger pages (IE skills, combat etc.), nailing them down with relevant information, then standing back and looking at what can be split off into seperate articles. Considering that the main page apparently suffers constant revisions, yet still looks so good, repeating that with the larger pages would stop this 'divide and conquer' effect and give those who've slogged away for hours a bit of a break. QuagmireDog 09:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed QuagmireDog's vote for deletion per his request at [8]. John254 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. IMO all major MMORPGs should at most have a "skills" article and a "weapons" article or the like (and any other generalized articles that are relevant): that is reasonable, and it will cut down on the cruft. Dark Shikari 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You're moaning about the wasted space of this article. It has been proven time after time that they deserve to stay and these afds are wasting so much of Wikipedia's space that this should hardly even be considered a discussion anymore. J.J.Sagnella 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cooking, at the very least. That particular article reached a clear consensus of "Keep" very recently - it's bad faith to nominate again so soon just because there's a hip new crusade against "gamecruft" on wikipedia. 129.61.46.16 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Close Debate; the last AfD for these articles closed two days ago, officially with no consensus, but several editors, Hyenaste for example, have started merging them together anyway. Give them a chance to finish, for pete's sake! Theres also a major effort in the works to eliminate or at least reduce the fancruft that, admittedly, some of the subpages contain. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would normally vote delete, as I believe these articles are unencyclopedic and contain mostly unverifiable information and doesn't use reliable sources. However, I would like to see some of the proposed merging take place and then see what the RuneScape article landscape looks like. I would not like to see a speedy keep take place, but would like to see this nomination withdrawn for now. It would be far better to have a proper AFD, rather than one filled with comments saying that they haven't had time to complete planned merges and saying keep on the ground of a recent "no consesus". Wickethewok 15:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All too big to merge. Englishrose 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Debate, 2 days ago? That's rediculous. What's the point of having AfD if you're just going to re-nominate them if you don't get your way? --PresN 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the last AfD was closed because too many articles were listed together, I've chosen a few articles which are all similar and very game guide'ish.--Andeh 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Close this debate, wait a week or two and let editors who work on these articles get them merged or whatever they think is neccessary, then if they're still around and reading like game guides, go ahead and AfD them. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why merge content that fails WP:NOT?--Andeh 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it fails WP:NOT, then obviously it shouldn't be merged. Like I said, just let this cool off for a few weeks. Whoever edits these articles regularly can merge whatever content is relevant, and the rest can be tossed out. If they don't do that, then go ahead and AfD it. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I'd like to see these go, I have to agree: there's been too much Runescape on AfD recently, and a crusade won't help anyone. Speedy no-consensus without prejudice to a good-faith AfD in a month, when the editors involved have had a proper chance to address the concerns people have raised in these and all the other Runescape articles. — Haeleth Talk 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, speedy no consesus... I don't think I've seen one of those before... but I think it may be appropriate in this case. Wickethewok 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John QuagmireDog 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP And let us finish our merging, editing, compiling, or whatever you want to call it. Enough is enough. I want to repeat my entire diatribe from the last one, but that would take up even more space. Geeeeeeeez!!!!!!! Xela Yrag 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - work in progress... As for the points: 1. Disgree with the "guide" argument, as most of the howto and full lists, for instance, have been slashed. 2. Relevance, no more or less relevant to non gamers, than the detail on many other topics is to non-whatevers. I'd question if there is enough WP-relevant comtent to support individual skill articles though, but maybe enough that skills needs to be split in some way to avoid being over-large .. not a guide, but more than the most minimalistic overview. Also, some editors are contributing on the other wiki, and pulling the history rug from under them would be unhelpful. Ace of Risk 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Inclusionist and supporter of the "recycle bin" idea[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close to no consensus per above, it is too soon (only two days!) since the last nomination. Is there official policy about how long before the next AfD for the same article (that ended in no consensus) can officially take place? One month? Six months? --SevereTireDamage 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Bad-faith nomination. Ace of Sevens 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Fan Games Galaxy[edit]

I had tagged this with a notability tag and was waiting to see what happened. Another user prod'ed it with this reason: "Website with no assertion of notability. See talk page for more details." The prod was removed by the page's author, and an explanation is given on the talk page. I'm taking this here for community consensus, but currently abstain. GassyGuy 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Funny. Because the reason it is notable is referenced directly on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)

  • In all fairness, it's debatable whether a passing mention on a TV show qualifies it per WP:WEB, but again, I currently have no opinion and am doing this for procedural reasons. Please see WP:PROD. GassyGuy 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, Attack of the show qualifies as a journalistic medium and not just a TV show. It is a technology news show and is presented as such. --DimensionWarped 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of what medium it is, the coverage is supposed to be non-trivial and there are supposed to be multiple sources. If those sources are added to the article, I'm sure the consensus will be to keep. GassyGuy 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Triviality is in the eye of the beholder... but since I don't really know MFGG that well, I wouldn't really know if there are other sources. --DimensionWarped 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I don't get what you people are trying to accomplish. The media reference was listed and you still aren't satisfied. Whatever happened to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 70.130.145.169 05:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's right here: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to get technical, half of the articles here wouldn't be found in any encyclopedia. 70.130.145.169 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, as I originally proposed deletion, I think this article should be deleted, based on the fact the article was created in violation of WP:POINT, as it was created as an example to attempt to justify the existance of Sonic Fangames HQ, an article deleted in AfD. External forum topic here with post from author [[9]]. Also, I really don't see how a passing, mispronounced reference on a television show automatically qualifies it as notable. Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX is certainly notable; however, MFGG is simply a website that Blaze posted it at. If being on television is of itself proof of notability, then every person ever on a game show or making funny faces at the local news TV camera behind the news anchor is notable, and that's simply not the case. Now, if the author can show us a multitude of shows referencing the website, or a ton of press coverage, instead of one single instance, that would be a different matter and I'd gladly consider changing my opinion. -MysticEsper 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whomever you are, linking to other forums to start trouble all because you don't think this article is necessary is stupid. I suggest you remove the link. I feel that refusing to do so would also fall under WP:POINT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment That link seems quite relevant to our discussion, and it hardly falls under WP:POINT. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 70.130.145.169, I am trying to accomplish something very simple: stating my point. In order to make a claim, I must back up my opinion with facts. Simply saying "This is a violation of WP:POINT because I said so" isn't going to explain anything, and simply make me look like an idiot. By posting material to justify my claims, I both add information to the discussion and state my point clearly. -MysticEsper 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MysticEsper, according to those forum posts, this article falls under WP:POINT, and at any rate a passing, mispronounced mention on TV does not qualify it for an article. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both this site and SFGHQ have been around for a very long time and without them, I don't think Mario fangaming or Sonic fangaming would have ever done near as well. There's a whole section for fanmade games and remakes and I think two of some of the biggest fangame sites earn it's spot. -W.A.C. (7/26/06)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB; a single passing reference does not give notability, and the article's claims of incredible traffic are hardly supported by the (admittedly flawed) tools we have available to assess that: for example, the site's Alexa ranking is just 348,298, while Google returns fewer than 250 results when you search for the site's name. For a wholly internet-based entity, this is not impressive. My personal homepage does better on the Google test... — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure how significant this is, but in the 4 days since you made that post, the Alexa ranking went up by 25,058. 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MysticEsper. Violation of WP:POINT. -Royalguard11Talk 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm probably biased since I'm the administrator, Keep, but clean up clean up clean up. The site has about 3000 members on it and consumes somewhere in the range of 200 GB of bandwidth a month, which is a ton. The reason searching for the actual site name doesn't bring up that many results is that it's almost always referred to by its abbreviation: MFGG. I think the site is significant enough. If things like this can go completely unchecked, I see no reason why a website like this can't be included. As for the G4 mention, when the same story was reposted on the Attack of the Show website, it primarily mentioned the MFGG website instead of the Blue Twlight Game. A lot of this article needs to be improved though. Right now, the article only makes sense to those who are really involved in the website, especially with the terminology. The site is definitely signifcant enough to warrant its own article, but I would suggest a complete re-write. ShadowMan1od 00:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ShadowMan1od. Notable website, GHit for "MFGG" gets 19,200 hits. Needs {{cleanup}} not {{afd}}. Note that notability (WP:N) is an essay and not a guideline. Per the offical policy (WP:WIN), the article "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, [etc.]" It is doing this, (or could,) but needs a lot of cleanup. See also: m:Wiki is not paper and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --DavidHOzAu 06:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Only about 10 (at the most) of the results on the first 3 pages are related to this site. The rest of the pages have results with even fewer references to the site, so the actual hit count is not really an accurate count at all, as with nearly all Google searches. syphonbyte (t|c) 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment doesn't matter Because notability is in the eye of the beholder, WP:N is an essay, it isn't even a guideline. (Essays are the furthest that articles in the Wikipedia namespace can get from policy.) Besides, GHits can only be used to rule in, not to rule out. (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy about that, but this nomination is too close to ending for me to find it.) I suggest the article be considered on its technical potential for an encylopedic article, which is why I'm firm in the belief that {{cleanup}} was needed instead of {{afd}}. --DavidHOzAu 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment (found it) Despite the somewhat questionable grounds of WP:WEB, deleting on notabilty alone is clearly argumentum ad google (argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority in one), with the intent to generate an argument for deletion based on ad hominem grounds. (This is why I am forced to question all WP:WEBs where I notice that the rationale is based on fallacious arguments.) Also, saying "there's no search hits therefore it isn't notable" is like saying "Black holes don't exist because I can't see them." IMHO, AfD could function a lot better if were based on the technical content of the article (words, structure, style, etc.) instead of what is being talked about, which as I mentioned is the offical policy. --DavidHOzAu 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mention on a single TV show does not meet WP:WEB. Poor Alexa/Google showing doesn't help either. Wickethewok 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But Rewrite - Fangaming is a very notable phenomenon (and even has its own article). Mario fangaming is particularly prevelent, and as the most undeniably comprehensive source of Mario fangames and fangaming resources, MFGG is certainly notable. In fact, MFGG is notable for historic reasons; namely, it was one of the first fangaming sites to survive for several years. That said, this article should be heavily rewritten to focus more on how significant MFGG is to the fangaming community, which I am willing to do. Also, as noted by DavidHOzAu, WP:N is not official policy. While WP:WEB is an official guideline, WP:PAG states that Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Therefore, it is entirely possible (and, given the importance of MFGG to the fangaming community, probable) that MFGG may be exempt from WP:WEB. Jeff Silvers 03:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that the site focuses on a notable subject and has been around for a long time does not make it notable, though. syphonbyte (t|c) 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment True, but the fact that it is undeniably the most prominent resource for said notable subject does. Jeff Silvers 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Not neccessarily, though. I can prove this by counterexample: the most prominent site for information on the TOC2 protocol was originally a (relatively) obscure html file on an utterly non-notable site. The TOC2 protocol itself is notable, but the site that was the leading authority on it was not. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I think the difference would be that while the site would be the leading authority on TOC2, TOC2 is essentially just a system. This is a community instead of just a function that you can document. Mario fangaming is fairly widespread, and MFGG is essentially the hub for all of it (especially for fangaming in general too). ShadowMan1od 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment TOC2 is (along with OSCAR) the primary protocol for AOL Instant Messenger, so it's actually more widespread than Mario fangaming. Getting back to the main point, there is no notability by proxy. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment again I didn't mean it as in "MARIO FANGAMING IS REALLY IMPORTANT GUYS", its just the "main site" aspect. While that site wasn't notable, it was more of something that you could make write-ups and documents on rather than being a growing community that requires a main hub. ShadowMan1od 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I simply don't see how this is related, though. Fangaming is a notable subject, no question, and many Mario fangames themselves are notable, such as Blaze's Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX. However, a website that hosts or talks about a notable subject isn't notable on those grounds. Where is the news coverage talking about the site itself? -MysticEsper 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Towers[edit]

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean does or does not? —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 12:25Z
Whoops. Thanks for the catch. Tabercil 22:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No citations of notability. αChimp laudare 05:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite notable within her genre. 23skidoo 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Porn actresses have professional lifespans of a mayfly: they get enormous fame, huge numbers of appearances, and then disappear utterly in the course of 18 months. We have a duty, if we are encyclopedic, to be sluggish in recognition and conservative. We are not IMDB nor Variety nor AVN, so we have to wait a bit to see who sticks, as it were, and maintains a career. Women with breast upgrades are not automatic. Geogre 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice if she becomes notable in the future. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. However, if we could prove she is notable within a niche, then I would vote to keep. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The niche is 70FFF models. Or is that FFF models or is that 60 inch+ models?Vegaswikian 02:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She is notable and even has an entry on the French Wikipedia, IMDb entry, and the most improtant 1,710 results on Google Images. [10] --Haham hanuka 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (breast enhancement does not a notable figure make), but I won't oppose re-creation if she does end up meeting WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO at some point. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is more famous than half the porn actresses who have entries. Article needs improvement in terms of facts, however.
  • Keep. Star of an AVN Award-winning film counts for something. She is a model so why just judge her as an actor? The fact that the French Wiki includes her establishes international notability. Vegaswikian 02:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haham hanuka . We have not that many Canadian porn stars, maybe would be better to delete less notable ones from the US. Hektor 04:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her life span in the business goes from 1990 to at least 2005 and she still is very popular in the niche community of big breast fetish. The information in the wikipedia article is factoid as far as can be verified but could use additions. per CB
  • keep please notable in her genre and appeared in a award winning film Yuckfoo 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chroma Network[edit]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. Non-notable site with forum with 5 registered members. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your website. Fabricationary 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay[edit]

Non notable film director. A google search reveals only a wikipedia entry. Ageo020 03:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as above Arianna 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 4:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think the 'IP address' has a point. if most articles are in malayalam, then google will have few hits. Bushido Hacks 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as relevant web pages in malayalam are found. Fallen Angel3787 06:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as Fallen Angel3787 Bohanlon 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't think google hits must be used as a basis for an article. User:Jeffrey Smith 07:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the discussion should close now. There are an overwhelming number of keep votes. Lolita Strawberry 08:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As Lolita strwaberry MartinRudat 08:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He has been nominated for Best director award in Kerala.ImageObserver 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as mohanlal Navya Nair 10:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep non indians will not know him Saat Hindustani 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just experimenting with wikipedia. Jagte Raho 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I do know this guy Raj Kapoor 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep no google hits is not a basis for deleting an article. PuzzleMeister 11:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.84 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverifiable, completely non-notable, this subject is so far out there they can't even stimy up an IMDb page or a 1 second film credit. --Hetar 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even an IMDB entry would help. Apparently, has not directed very entertaining sock puppet plays, but that's just my opinion... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, apparently searching for the name "Akshay Pottathil" in IMDB does turn up an entry - as some 2004 movie's PR director. Not, not, not notable... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

59 g-hits, promotion company for professional (semi-pro?) wrestling organization in Australia. BigDT 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. if this article is deleted, i think the articles for wrestlers should also be deleted. --Ageo020 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising --Xrblsnggt 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Promotion is professional. Does this mean that the other promotions (i.e. PCW Australia and the Australian Wrestling Federation) will have to be deleted as well? Normy132 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, admittedly, know nothing whatsoever about wrestling. As a general rule, IMO, professional and semi-pro sports leagues (NFL, AFL, AF2, and the analagous organizations in other sports) are notable. The ad agency for the Washington Redskins is not. My understanding from looking at this article is that it is more like the ad agency for the Washington Redskins. Am I incorrect? I saw the PCW article and assumed it was the pro or semi-pro league itself and thus generally accepted as notable. I don't know anything about it either way and am just going off of what the article said it was and g-hits. BigDT 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The key to the deletion of this article is whether or not it is actually gone for good after the loss of the Tattersalls sponsorship. Debating as to whether or not this promotion is professional is privy to opening a rather large can of worms in relation to the other promotions in this country (as previously mentioned - and not just PCW and AWF either). If this article is deleted it must be for a specific reason exclusive to this article.
    • Well in that case I think we should wait until if the death of the promotion is decisive before we go deleting it. Normy132 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The promotion is not as important as WWE and TNA, so it shouldn't stay. Early 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a slap in the face to Australian wrestling, Early. I strongly recommend you go and see a PWA or NAW show (if you live in Melbourne) before making such rash judgments.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted already. Proto::type 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ellegood[edit]

Is this person of perticular notability? Jay Carlson 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete for non-notability and suspected WP:AUTO. VoiceOfReason 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references provided. --Ageo020 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. The db-bio was already applied to the tag by somebody else. αChimp laudare 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drop dead[edit]

This is just a dicdef. We do not have articles for Get lost, Go away, Go to hell or other similar expressions. Shut up has a disambiguation page, but only for the various songs with that title. Nydas 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to allow clearer consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictionary definition and useless dab. -- Koffieyahoo 06:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 09:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruaraidh-dobson 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "A to B: drop dead" history is useful similar to considered harmful. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 12:23Z
  • Trans to Wiktionary and Delete I like the rewrite, but it's inappropriate to disambig partial titles only, and the rest is a dicdef that belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Ziggurat 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Techno Militia Collective[edit]

Non-notable local band. Has plenty of references from reliable sources in Detroit, but nothing from outside of Detroit. No entries in either Allmusic or Discogs. I undeleted this after someone requested on my talk page. After cleaning it up to remove the unencyclopedic tone and adding references, I don't think it's keep-worthy. Delete. Kimchi.sg 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, even if the coverage is local, if they meet WP:RS standards then this survives WP:MUSIC as having "been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media." -- H·G (words/works) 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but suggest the closing admin relist for consensus. I was the original prodder and would have appreciated being told of its relisting. That aside, the original article was untenable and Kimchi.sg's improvements are a vast improvement. Still, the external links are asically local gossip/blog links. My Boy Scout troop made the local paper once when I was growing up - I don't think anyone calls us notable. Also, the original version listed the members of this organization and it was something like 10-12 members. To me, that sounds like it is a small DJ business and not at all notable. BigDT 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like to say that Detroit Techno Militia is not a Band. Yes the site has 11 DJ/producers, but DTM is one of the driving forces in Detroit electronic music community. Their members have been featured in URB magazine and various other major news organizations in the music community. URB does not maintain online archives of all their magazines, but there is a link to this on their site [11]. T.Linder from DTM was reviewed on Allmusic.com [12] and DTM will have their first entry on discogs in September 2006. There are other articles about some of the members and the work they are doing around the world to help promote Detroit Techno [13] Unfortunately in the underground music community, mainstream press is hard to come by. DTM played the nefarious stage at this years DEMF - the largest outdoor electronic music festival [14] --Technochick 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to alloe clearer consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 03:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets press coverage requirements. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fucker List[edit]

non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Ghits: [15]. Previously prod'd [16] and prod2'd [17]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposal for deletion. While it may not be highly ranked on Google, the site in question is notable in that thousands of users visit the site per week, and many legal threats against it have made it a newsworthy topic. It is getting more popular every day, and will soon be much more well known than it currently is. - seinman 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back this up with some references from reliable sources? --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It also seems like article is promotional material. TheRingess 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. The threats (no actual lawsuits) don't seem to have achieved much notable media coverage. If thousands of visits per week made a site notable, every site ever would be here, as well as pretty much every YTMND, which can often receive thousands of hits per day. Also, looks like WP:VAIN/WP:SPAM to me. Wickethewok 04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign of notability. Mr Stephen 09:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website with the guiding idea of "hey, I know, let's remake losers.org, only even less funnily (if that's even possible)..." Not original, not notable, not... anything. At least I can't see how it could be. I can't even see the media getting excited about this, unless they're The Lived-Under-Rock-Since-1985 Community Daily News... "A person allegedly called another person 'A F*cker'", cried the headlines in cat-sized letters? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, website fails WP:WEB spam or not. Yamaguchi先生 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozaki[edit]

NN Taiwanese company fails WP:CORP. Author removed my prod. Their website won't load. αChimp laudare 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Lots of Ghits for ozaki headphones, cx059, etc. Website works for me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:45Z
  • Website worked for me (bit Flash heavy I suppose), but merge with another article (yet to find a suitable one, though), else delete. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainly unsourced OR, little that is encyclopaedic, no assertion of notability. BlueValour 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sorry Bobby. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:40Z

Bobbyist Caliphate State of River Laurel (miconation)[edit]

hoax --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and I'll provide the context AbsolutDan leaves out: Yet another NN micronation trying to muscle their way onto Wikipedia. Deprodded by User:Osloboslo (article creator) with reason of "this no hoax, its mentioned in the suwanee newspaper and on micronations.net". Bobbyist gets 372 G-hits; Bobbyist Caliphate State of River (I left out the "Laurel" because it's repeatedly mis-spelled in the article) gets zero. The story of its creation sounds like BJAODN material. It is the only page that links to any of its bobbyist-related redlinks. Morgan Wick 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, if not speedy. The article is completely ridiculous (it looks like it was created by some kid), and its subject is unverifiable (nothing on the sites mentioned on the talk page). There is also a template here that needs to go. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking over the article creator's edit history, it seems that the user has a history of making nonsense edits to various articles (in fact, the vast majority of his edits are nonsense edits). He also added "Bobbyism" to List of fictional religions, I removed it as blatant vanity. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very small percentage of micronations merit articles. This isn't part of that group. GassyGuy 06:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are maybe 2 or 3 notable micronations. This isn't one of them. Zero Google hits, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA - The Ladder of Life[edit]

Part of me doesn't want to do this to someone who wanted to contribute science articles, but Manoj Prajwal has created two pages - DNA - The Ladder of Life and Post-translational Modifications of proteins - that are entirely redundant with DNA and post-translational modification respectively. I left him a note to that effect on his talk page on the 22nd but he hasn't edited since then, and unfortunately, these really aren't useful to keep around.

The articles are unsourced and poorly formatted, the user signed his name to them, and one has an enormous and obviously copyvio image on it. The text itself doesn't seem to be copyvio, but the articles were created with a very small number of edits for such large blocks of text - I suspect these are someone's school papers. There's really nothing to merge to our more complete existing articles and the titles are such unlikely search terms that a redirect is unnecessary.

(I've nominated a third article created by this user, Role of Dendritic cell apoptosis in Autoimmune disorders, separately, since it was less redundant than these two.) Opabinia regalis 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Dendritic cell apoptosis in Autoimmune disorders[edit]

The third of the articles created by User:Manoj Prajwal that I'm nominating for deletion. (Other two here.) This article is on a very narrow topic, contains many inaccurate or overly certain-sounding statements, and was signed by the creator. It's not exactly original research, since I doubt the article creator actually did these experiments, but it's an outline for such - as I said on the other AfD, I suspect these are school papers or assignments turned into articles. I've already included a mention of this phenomenon in the autoimmune disorder page, but there really isn't enough sourced and accurate material here for a real merge, and the article title is an unlikely search term that doesn't need a redirect. Opabinia regalis 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Koffieyahoo 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for experimental reports written up at college one day. Byrgenwulf 06:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is absurdly technical, and appears to be a research abstract or summary of a technical paper. A paper, even a Nature paper, bereft of the context of its field, does not belong in an encyclopedia unless it is famous for some other reason, such as Watson and Crick's or Einstein's. Angio 07:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Journal of Immunology. -- GWO
  • Delete per above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:33Z
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for college essays, as interesting as immunology is. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sauver[edit]

Sauver has minuscule notability. A visit to its website shows an amazing 7 forum posts, 7 of them being from the developer. "Sauver" being a common word, using Google to evaluate notability is harder. However Google Groups has 0 hits for "sauveros" (the website being sauveros.com). Google Web has 9 non-omitted results, the first being its website's homepage, the second being Wikipedia and the third being a Wikipedia mirror. Another one is from its website, 2 are 404-s and 2 are typos of "sauverons".

The article was created since over 6 monthes but did not get any significant contribution from anyone other than Sauver's developer since then. It is low quality, with a POV tone. Chealer 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very non-notable liveCD Linux distro. Hence, delete by wikipedia is not a webdirectory. -- Koffieyahoo 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable software per Chealer. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:32Z
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete it is a very good distro and it is new so i think it takes time to get the notice.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbr[edit]

Article on non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB or any other standard to which one might appeal. 1 google hit—to the site [18]; same for a google link search. Alexa rank of 1,298,209 [19]. Article states that site is in beta and was created in 2006. Deprodded by creator who states on the article's talk page that "The site is being launched this week."--Fuhghettaboutit 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ends justify the means[edit]

Essay. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:OR and dicdef. --ColourBurst 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter tripe, and not encyclopaedic...WP:OR; reads like a recycled first-year assignment. Wikipedia is also not a repository for the exposition of idiom. Byrgenwulf 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More interesting than the comments above suggest, but still in effect a philosophically dubious dicdef. Vizjim 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Changing vote.[reply]
  • Keep and allow this to be improved. While not quite up to "good article" standards, I disagree that this is utter tripe or a dicdef. Many philosophers and ethicists have discussed this doctrine (as a defender, Leszek Kołakowski comes to mind), and there should at least be references to Consequentialism, which is the philosophical dressing of the doctrine, and to Sergey Nechayev, who popularized the phrase. --LambiamTalk 10:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just include a brief explication of the concept in a subsection under the consequentialism article then? I agree that the sentiment has attracted philosophical attention, but it has a name: "the ends justify the means" is not the name of the concept but an aphorism or slogan. As such, it could be defined in a dictionary of idiom, but the proper place for a discussion dealing with the philosophical implications of the doctrine, as the article in question tries to do, is in the article on consequentialism. And the piece as it is written is positively riddled with moralistic undertones, even though a vague attempt at scholarly detachment has been made. It is virtually irredeemable without a complete rewrite, I think, and I don't see that being justified in this case. Byrgenwulf 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the "common name" for a doctrine that has many more implications than just the philosophical ones. It is not just a "slogan", just like "Do No Harm" is not just a slogan, but a slogan representing a doctrine. Should we refer to Sergey Nechayev in the article Consequentialism? I don't think much of him as a philosopher (and I guess he would have agreed, as he did not think much of philosophers in general but regarded himself highly). To me, consequentialism is armchair philosophy that can be used to lend a semblance of legitimacy to the practice of committing atrocities in name of the "higher good", which is what "the ends justify the means" is about. --LambiamTalk 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what implications of an ethical doctrine would not be philosophical in nature, but I suppose this is the place to debate neither that nor whether the doctrine in question is about committing atrocities for a higher good (which I also dispute). I wouldn't call consequentialism "armchair philosophy", either, unless we are to write off such eminent thinkers as John Stuart Mill as mere "armchair philosophers". I can grant that sermonising about the end justifying the means is armchair philosophy, however, and Wikipedia is not a place to play host to that, I don't believe. The name for the concept, I maintain, is consequentialism: are we to have an article entitled "Always act in such a manner that bla bla bla" with a bit of vague rambling about Kant's ethics and then still have another, more scholarly one on the "categorical imperative"? A moral aphorism should not be the title of an article. Byrgenwulf 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it currently stands, this article needs references (Kant would seem a good place to start) and a bit of a clean-up. As it stands, I'd vote for a redirect to Consequentialism, but you wouldn't need to do much work on the article to persuade me to alter this vote to "Keep".
    • Comment Kant believed that if the intention was good, the action was good. He didn't believe that the ends justified the means. Think consequentialism. -Royalguard11Talk 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that wasn't terribly clear, was it? I meant Kant more as someone who considered the argument but whose conclusion was that the end never justified the means - both sides should be referenced. Vizjim 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 07:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a second story window[edit]

This musical group is unremarkable, and probably not notable enough to contribute anything to the subject matter Jay Carlson 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry about that. I searched for them, and didn't find much. I withdraw my request to delete. Keep. Jay Carlson 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 American League Pennant Race[edit]

Delete. 2006 in baseball already exists to cover significant events in baseball for 2006. Wikipedia is not a news report (WP:NOT). At least, cleanup or merge to 2006 in baseball. The current article focuses too closely on the Yankees and the Red Sox. -- Win777 05:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. 2006 in baseball focuses generally on everything, not a day to day happenings of theteams involved in the race, but if it can be merged as a subsection then okay. --YankeeFan2006. 8:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Actually posted by 152.163.100.65 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. No-one's going to create 1935 American League Pennant Race, and what's special about 2006 (besides systemic bias towards right now?) Wikinews may want it. -- GWO
    If you look at the Wild card standings you'll see it's a very tight race, just a half game separates the top three teams. I thought it's better to create a page that focuses on the progress of these teams. Go Yankees. 09:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if we wanted to follow the pennant race, then Yahoo sports or equivalent would be the source we go to. This is an encyclopaedia. -- Whpq 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We know the drill...Red Sox and Yankees keep it close in the East, Yanks pull away in September and the Sox beat everyone else for the wildcard. It's happened 3 straight years now. In any event, should be shortened and merged to 2006 in baseball. Kirjtc2 13:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feh. The Jays are comin'! ... Oh, um... Put anything useful into 2006 in baseball and delete this as being unnecessary. Tony Fox (speak) 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, you don't thing the D-Rays can make a late run and overtake everyone? And then beat the Royals in the ALCS? No faith. Fan-1967 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball keep `'mikka (t) 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turboencabulator[edit]

del. Main problems with this in-joke is notability and wikipedia:Verifiability. Despite a lengthy dispute with the fan of the article in Talk:Turboencabulator no verifiable references are provided, no any independent reputable sources. The references present in the text are webcopy of the text from a 50-year old obscure journal of unsure reference, a pdf of an alleged General Electric manual (a laughable reference in view of photoshopping), a video and an interview of an actor published in the humor section of a nonnotable company, so the interview itself may well be a meta-spoof. User:Brouhaha insists thar the "General Electric Catalog 1962/1963" is a valid reference. I cannot verify the existence of this catalog and thus I am called "too lazy to verify it". If someone can verify it, goodspeed. User:Brouhaha insists that the "General Electric Catalog 1962/1963" did contain the description of this fictional device and keeps reverting my cautious wording, the only statement I can verify: "It is claimed that the catalog contained". It may well be that this statement is a hoax-within-a-hoax.

Among not very large number of google hits for the word I failed to find reputable confirmations of notability of the joke.

Concluding, I genuinely wasted plenty my time trying to dig to the bottom of this hoax, and convinced myself that the article is ripe for deletion. `'mikka (t) 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as notable meme that has survived 60 years and become an internet meme with 30,000 Google hits for retro encabulator. I don't know if the GE catalog PDF is a real screw-up or a spoof (and if the latter, which is likely, whether the author of the article was himself hoaxed or trying to perpetrate a hoax), but either way it's still a notable-enough meme. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 12:15Z
    • My apologies, I was searching google for "turbo encabulator" only, not for "retro" (so I guess user:brouhaha is right, I am lazy) I am ready to withdraw the nomination if anyone points to a single independent (i.e., not source), reputable and verifiable reference. `'mikka (t) 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO!! If you delete the article for the retro-encabulator, you'll have to delete the article for God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.237.172.226 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep as a notable meme, but the generalization right above this argument is invalid. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable meme. I agree that the citation of the IEE article may be a ficticious/humorous part of the original joke, but the interview with Mike Kraft seems reasonably credible as regarding the retroencabulator video, and I dispute the notion that a catalog published by a major international corporation is not a legitimate reference. --Brouhaha 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a notable joke mellery 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's been an engineering joke for decades. It seems like it will be a joke magnet, though, and I'm not sure what to do about that. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medina neighborhoods[edit]

These areas described as neighborhoods in Medina County, Ohio are nothing more than mere housing subdivisions. Although the notability guidelines do not address places, I expect that a subdivision must display some special significance (which these do not) in order to justify an article. If not, Wikipedia would be overrun with articles on individual subdivisions and gated communities. - EurekaLott 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could tolerate a "Medina Neighborhood List" but each one does not deserve their own article without some individual establishment of notability. 205.157.110.11 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm waiting until someone starts articles on city blocks. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 05:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is clearly a need to establish what constitutes a neighborhood. Most of the neighborhood articles that I have read do not establish notability, even those that are in my mind notable e.g. Little Italy, Manhattan, Noe Valley, San Francisco, California. It is also true that unincorporated places are clear keepers on wikipedia. These neighborhoods do not seem notable to me and it is unclear to me that they are neighborhoods at all. Nonetheless it seems that true neighborhoods would always be notable, as they are often deliniated on maps etc. I don't think that suburban gated communities or subdivisions constitute a neighborhood.--Nick Y. 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of neighborhoods in Medina, Ohio. As I mention on that talk page, there seems to be a precedent for lists of neighborhoods as evidenced by List of neighborhood listings by city. I'm undecided on the individual neighborhood articles, but perhaps information from the other articles could be merged into the list. Lbbzman 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Simply based on wiki guidelines (or lack there of in respect to sub-divisions), these developments "technically" seem to merit articles. 64.12.116.137 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think that we should err on the side of keep, not because these are notable neighborhoods but simply because neighborhoods are notable. I'm not certain these qualify as neighborhoods though?--Nick Y. 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Medina, Ohio. The main city article doesn't even link to the neighborhoods article and isn't large enough to justify separate articles of relatively indistinguished neighborhoods. No assertion is made of the notability of the individual neighborhoods, but may be relevant to someone researching the city. Neil916 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep but really only if every use of "neighborhood" is replaced with "sub-division." I would even support a merge, either alltogether as Sub-divisions in/of Medina, Ohio (ideal) or with Medina, Ohio 205.188.116.199 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support a Keep or Merge. Delete seems a little harsh for information that does indeed follow wiki criteria/guidelines. 152.163.100.74 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge per Neil916. Information isn't unnotable, just not enough for its own article Antares33712 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles in question: Articles are still in the works. I kindly request that the community gives them a chance. I am currently devoting time in an effort to make them all more consise and relavant. Nick22aku 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge per Neil916 and Antares33712. "Give me time isn't an argument that should cut any ice - if you feel the article can be improved, you need to do it now. Nobody can vote based on the idea that thhe article will be better in a possible future. Vizjim 09:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has smerge fallen out of parlance lately? Montville Township, Medina County, Ohio could benefit from a brief mention of the neighborhoods' names, and links to things such as the homeowners' associations. But we don't need to know the names of the streets or that a neighborhood is supposedly "luxurious". Some of the content reads like an ad and isn't helping the problem. Jacqui★ 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Luxurious" was used simply because many of the homes have a value of $1+ million - But if that term is a problem I will be happy to remove it.
For future reference when writing an article, a specific (that the homes are $1 mill+) is always better than what many Wikipedians consider "weasel words" like luxurious. Jacqui★ 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...even better, you used a perfect example of weasel words in the response above (i.e. "what many Wikipedians consider") ;) ;) 152.163.100.74 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Goethem[edit]

non-notable family name. I have a strong suspicion that this might be a vanity page of GVnayR (who until recently was RyanVG). The creator has the same initials as the surname that is the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not for genealogical entries. In a prior version, the creator of the article used a "source" that linked to a person in the editor's hometown with the same surname as in the article. There had been a {{linkless}} tag, and the creator of the article connected it or created articles to link to it. The edit that made me notice the similarity of the initials of the editor to the surname of the article was when the creator of this article edited User:VincentV to include a link to the article. VincentV has been inactive since 2002. Along with the wildly unsubstantiated statements of unverified (and often irrelevant) "facts", some of which have been excised from prior versions, this an unencyclopedic article. (Another user put the {{hoax}} template on the page, but I don't think that is the case). Agent 86 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it is improved. See also Guiler, by the same editor. Mr Stephen 09:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If not a hoax, then still unsourced original research without assertion of notability. --LambiamTalk 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, OR, and the fact that too much effort has gone into cleaning up after this author. Fan-1967 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We may have articles like Van Goethem syndrome, but the name itself is not notable enough to merit its own article. It's obviously not a hoax, though, since the name does exist. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the author. He/she/it has created numerous articles of similar calibre - most of which have since been deleted. Rklawton 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:OR, no WP:V, could be WP:BALLS. --Kinu t/c 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the author. I prodded half a dozen of their articles recently, and had my {{hoax}} silently removed on this page. -- GWO
Comment: I have removed all the stuff with citation signals and knocked it down to 1 sentence. I suspect in this form it runs aground on notability guidelines as opposed to hoaxing. Revert if the previous version looked cooler. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Longhair 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckfrance.com[edit]

Vanity article for a site with no assertion of notability or popularity. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How It Feels to Have a Gay or Lesbian Parent: A Book by Kids for Kids of All Ages[edit]

A stub about a probably non notable book; after a month with notability and advert tags, the article is still unchanged and contains nothing more than Amazon-like advertising. Ioannes Pragensis 08:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Martian[edit]

This article contains barely any information, and what little information it does contain is completely worthless.--Mertens21

  • Delete as a non-notable song by an eminently notable band. BigHaz 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say merge into the album, but it's already there.--Chaser T 09:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stadium Arcadium. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:19Z
  • Keep Deleting this serves no purpose. Just expand it or leave it alone. --71.36.251.182 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What do you mean deleting this serves no purpose? Keeping it serves no purpose because this is an encyclopedia, which is used for learning and this article doesn't contain enough information to learn from and there is nothing to add to the article so you can't expand it. Therefore the best thing to do is delete.--Mertens21/FrodoTBagins/DonkeyPunch21/Squirrel 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. John254 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am doubtful about having articles on individual album tracks when there is one on the album. Policy, anyone? BlueValour 04:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questorial[edit]

This notation is unpopular. It seems that it is a product of original research. (WP:OR) --Burn 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asbru Web Content Management[edit]

Content management system, around 150 unique Googles, nothing on gnews, no evidence of innovation, market share, user base, appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Hill House[edit]

This is just a description of a college residence. Not appropriate for an Encyclopedia. There is mention of anythinh historic that happened here. The author has defended it as being a listed building, when I nominated it for speedy deletion, but in the UK, almost every building of similar age is listed. This is just not notable Jimbo68 10:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Listed building, Grade I buildings are of "exceptional interest". There are hundreds of articles in Category:Grade I listed buildings inculding multiple subcategories. So being Grade I listed alone might be enough notability to be kept, and definitely enough to not be speediable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:09Z
  • Grade I listed building = notable. Keep. Vizjim 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This building of "exceptional interest" seems to merit notability. --Porqin 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Definitely notable if it's a Grade I building. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quarl, Grade I buildings should qualify for inclusion. RFerreira 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it would be nice to have a more direct connection between the references and the information. Ziggurat 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep considering how it's a Grade I building. More information on it would be good, though. Insane99 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—When in doubt, expand rather than delete, and there is clear doubt here. Williamborg 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly noteworthy.--Nicodemus75 07:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All grade I listed buildings are notable. Piccadilly 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 test page. Kimchi.sg 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

wrong title, original research essay Travelbird 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Cedar Park[edit]

This article contains little or no content, simply stating 'Glen Cedar Park is a park in Toronto', and giving its address. The park is utterly non-notable. I have speedily deleted this park under CSD A4 in the past, but as it has been recreated, I think AFD is necessary, as the creator disagrees with my view. Non notable park, no content other than a rephrasing of the title, an address, and a pretty picture. Delete. Proto::type 11:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The articles creator has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.--Porqin 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Forest Hill, Toronto. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:52Z
  • Delete I don't see any reason why this small park, with no significance, belongs in an encyclopedia. --Porqin 12:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to merge. Vizjim 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with the photo possibly being added to the Forest Hill page. SliceNYC 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if this is all we can say about it, we might as well delete this. Mangojuicetalk 15:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say speedy it as recreated content, but it appears Proto wants some consensus. So delete it is. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable park, not really anything to merge. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Improper listing. Rje 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achondrogenesis, type 2[edit]

This redirect was created by renaming the page. The page it goes to was nominated for merge. So I don't want to create double redirect by leaving the old name if ever anyone use it. Aristiana 11:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it's just different spelling:[reply]

  • Redirects for deletion is at WP:RFD. But, I don't think these redirects should be deleted; they are useful enough - most redirects are. Please withdraw this AFD (you can just indicate your intention and an admin will close it), then re-submit to RFD if you still want to delete the redirects. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:51Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vbseo[edit]

NN software/plugin. Basically, this is a plugin for a forum software; while the software itself is notable, third-party plugins for them rarely are and should be subject to closer scrutiny of their notability. The article has an extensive section about this plugin's history and motivations, but, no offense to the article authors intended, I fail to see how anyone whould be interested about that stuff when reading an encyclopaedia. If you'd rewrite the article, you'd basically get "One of the plugins that rewrites vBulletin URLs so they're more search-engine friendly, for example, foo → bar." and that's about as far as it could be extended. That doesn't sound very impressive to me. At most, this is worth an external link. As far as that is concerned, there's no reason why this shouldn't be deleted. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 repost. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amra's Green Shoes[edit]

In my opinion, it is definitely a hoax. Google search gives zero relevant results. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete by clear consensus. However, rather than actually deleting, I've redirected this to La Salle University instead, in order to preserve history in case some of this content wants to be merged there. Friday (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Dorms[edit]

  • Delete: First, there are multiple copyright violations on the page. The template on the upper right contains an image that is a copyright violation. Much of the texts of the article are direct or very near direct copy/paste work from [20] and other halls in the list on the left of that page. Second, from Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas "Please think twice before creating an article about any of the following: ...Your dormitory (unless it's on the Historic Register)". There is nothing remarkable about this dormitory that is highlighted by the article. The creator of the article has been asking for time to flesh out this article (and a number of other articles from the La Salle University Campus). The inception of this article was a week ago. That's enough time. --Durin 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm the creator. Lasallefan 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that while I did generate the article a week ago, I really haven't worked on it until yesterday. I would like more time to complete it.
  • Also, the picture was a copyright violation (I'm fairly new in regards to pictures, sorry), but it has been removed and hopefully I'll put a new (legal) one up soon.
  • This article was certainly not copy/pasted. I did take information from the site Durin mentions, but those are the facts of the structure. You can't do anything about that.
  • There is precedence for this article, as many universities have buildings listed on Wikipedia. I understand that doesn't necessarily make it right, but it's at least of note. Ther are a lot of residence halls on this site.
  • I have already received some feedback in support of others on my talk page. Durin HIMSELF actually noted previously (and I think this is an important point), "My own personal take is that if we can have articles on obscure Pokémon characters, certainly it is worthwhile to have articles on buildings where literally thousands of people have lived over the years, such as residence halls." user:Uppland added "I have nothing against good articles about buildings at your campus provided they are of some historical or architectural interest".
  • What Durin is not grasping, in his move to make this an AFD, is that to students, alumni, and prospective students, this complex is very important and has a long history. Even more importantly, people involved (or who want to be involved) with these buildings can find this information extremely helpful and relevant. Just because individuals outside the univeristy/city don't KNOW of the building, doesn't mean that it isn't notable or important.
  • In general, there are a lot worse articles online than this one, and this is notable and informative for many people Lasallefan 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not like being misquoted. I did not write "I have nothing against good articles about buildings at your campus provided they are informative" What I did write was: "I have nothing against good articles about buildings at your campus, provided they are of some historical or architectural interest".[21] What you left out makes all the difference. up+l+and 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, your right. But yes, that was said. Lasallefan 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTYou are also misinterpreting me. I am not asserting that since we have article on minor Pokémon characters, we can have articles on non-notable residence halls. I don't think we should have individual articles on minor Pokémon characters either. This also goes to what you mentioned above; the mere presence of other articles on Wikipedia of similar nature or of articles with subjectively less importance does not grant status to the existence of another article in a similar vein.
  • Further, you can state facts about a place, but you are not permitted to use direct verbiage from a copyright holder to represent those facts. Taking the St. Albert Hall element of the article we're discussing, I'll bold all text that is a direct copy of [22]:
  • It is blatantly obvious that text was either cut/pasted or re-typed to match what the cited webpage contains. Either way, it is a direct copyright violation. An alternative representation that would contain the same facts, without the copyright problems:
  • The re-write contains no such copyright violations. It takes more time to write non-copyrighted text, but if you want to contribute here you need to do this. The copyright violations remain throughout the article and need to be excised. --Durin 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: some of the above was corrected, but I put back in the removed comments for clarity. Lasallefan has since corrected his misquote. Friday (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, and, as time permits, delete most of the other dorm articles also. One bad article does not justify another. Yes, the existance of buildings is verifiable to anyone with a phone book, but the mere existance of a thing does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. There have been attempts to discuss what would make a particular building notable, but we have no guidelines on this that I'm aware of. If historians or architects heavily write about a particular building, reliable sources demonstrating this should be abundant. In absense of anything like that, delete. Let's let universities do their marketing on their own websites. Friday (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments: As for the "it's important to some people", I heard this exact argument the other day. A woman made an article saying that her husband was the greatest person in the whole world. It was speedy deleted, and she was insulted that someone would say her husband is "not notable"- after all, he's the sweetest, most lovable man in the world. My house, my car, and my dog are all imporant to me, but they're very clearly not suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. As a general rule, things that are considered "local interest" only are not included. Friday (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Yes but that woman is ONE person were talking about tens-of-thousands of people who have LIVED in this complex, hundreds of thousands who have had direct contact with it, and certainly millions of people who at least know/knew about it. Most of which, by the way, are NOT local. Lasallefan 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only evidence that they deemed it notable is if they created and wrote non-trivial published works of their own about it. If this university building is notable, there will be non-trivial works about it that were created and published by someone other than the university. Please cite one or more such works. Currently, this article contains zero citations. Uncle G 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I see what your saying Durin. I will reference, AND completely go back and re-edit each portion of this article (if this article passes on its other merits). But there's too much random talk here...let's get back to the main point of this article here. Let's try to limit comments to "should this article be deleted?". This is a discussion of three people regarding problems that need to be addressed Lasallefan 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: but rename to La Salle university! Because more than one university has a north dorms. I mentioned this in the discussion page (which has already been deleted, thank you so much). Moderator: As for the paraphrased context and stolen pictures, simply revert these additions that got the article into some scrutiny. I do live in the area and would be more than willing to upload some pictures that are not in violation of any copyright. Lasallefan: why ADD content that is already summarized on other websites? I don't think it's what wikipedia is about, to imitate already existing websites, pictures and text and all. If not illegal, it certainly is not constructive. It serves no purpose. If you rely less on the copy and paste functions, and more on the creative side, your pages will not be deleted. There certainly are unique aspects of north dorms community life that can be explored here. delinodeshields 3:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Unique aspects of the community? You're saying there are things people who live in this dorm do that nobody does in any other dorm anywhere? I really, seriously doubt it. Sorry. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have never thought school buildings, except for rare exceptions, to be notable. School dorms aren't really of any more encyclopedic interest than any other apartment complex. Wickethewok 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual school buildings usually aren't encyclopedically notable, and dorms especially aren't. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment: A non-trivial, public work has been written about it. I have enclosed the reference. Lasallefan 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A non-trivial, public work has been written about the North Dorms at La Salle University, Lasallefan? Unfortunately, in the references section, I can only locate the school's website and a book about La Salle University. When I see a non-trivial, public work written about the North Dorms, I'll switch my vote to keep. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentIt's WITHIN the document. And, no, I can't find you a book strictly on North Dorms. But I can't find a book on A LOT of buildings on Wikipedia. Lasallefan 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable building. Seriously, only 50 years old, no major architectural awards, no well-known cultural references, neither the setting of nor set of any major films, not the subject of any publications... so far as I can see, it's just another dorm.
    If there are lots of other articles like this, then they should be deleted too. There are, I believe, clear precedents. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per stated above. No one cares about the North Dorms, nor is it notable in any way. Pacdude 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely non-notable building. Sandstein 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a college brochure. Geoffrey Spear 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously NN αChimp laudare 00:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit[edit]

Tagged as "patent nonsense" by another editor two times, but that has been contested. Ezeu 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has not been any of the editors of this article that have edited Charles I. We have tirelessly worked on this article for a whole day. If you think it's a hoax, CHECK THE REFERENCES. Mohit DOES appear in there, and not in a minimal role either. We don't much appreciate users who say delete without any reason, AKA Tintin and Coredesat. If you honestly believe that this article is a hoax, which it is not, please state some conflicting evidence instead of saying "delete as a hoax". Every single word in that article is true, and we should be receiving praise about writing such a detailed account of an important sage's life instead of being vilified for it.
Thank you, and I hope you see the light of your errors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythonriot (talk • contribs)
  • Don't you realize that every single edit on Wikipedia is recorded and clearly visible? You created this article. You added the garbage to Charles I. You came here and lied about it. Thank you. You've exposed yourself. If anyone had any remaining doubt that this is a total fabrication and outright hoax, you have made everything crystal clear. There cannot be any doubt at all, now. Fan-1967 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry, didn't remember that, it was my first contribution and I was playing around at school, I'd only just learned of Mohit when we were studying ancient India in World History, and we looked him up on Wikipedia for a paper but he wasn't there, leading to the creation of this article. I was pretty ticked at his absence from this site, so I edited some nonsense, but the content of this article remains true, as you can see from the absence of Charles I anywhere. And the information on the Bantu tribe is true as well, some moderator keeps deleting it, however.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pythonriot (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2006.
Your edit to the Bantu article is evidence that you are a hoaxer.--Ezeu 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly it is not patent nonsense. It may be a hoax, but that would need to be judged by those with knowledge of relevant history. This material was added to the article on Pope Silvester I by an anon on January 5 and has apparently been unchallenged there since that time. However, this edit to Charles I of England, by the author of this article, does appear to be absolute garbage, which would support the claim that the whole thing is a hoax. Google is unhelpful, as Mohit is a common given name. Fan-1967 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Delete There is no person named Mohit from the 4th century. This is a big hoax.--Babub→Talk 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoax is not a speedy criterion. Fan-1967 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific? What stuff is in which reference? This material is extremely suspect since its authors have inserted absolutely undisputable garbage about Mohit into other articles like Charles I, cited above, and Bantu. Fan-1967 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first reference has a bit more, like Mohit's meeting with Pope Silvester, but they overlap a lot. They both mention Beast and Man, but the second also has more about his science of love. The first also talks more about his early life, as opposed to just birth location and time period. --§m¡lª¢k 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did either source describe how Mohit converted England to Hinduism after the death of Charles I in 1649? Fan-1967 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepUndisputable garbage? We live in a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. So, too is it conceivable that a man should be accepted as existing unless proven contrariwise. It is far easier to prove a man exists than to prove the opposite. Herein lies considerable evidence that the man in question did in fact exist, and held deeply considered beliefs in his respective fields of philosophy. Perhaps he is obscure, but consider the following: Gravity is only a theory. It is a set of beliefs which seem to hold true in all circumstances. We believe we know how it functions, but we cannot claim to know why. We cannot see or comprehend it, but only witness its influences. So too can we witness Mohit's influences in the references aforementioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.90.27 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006
  • This is not a country, and the criminal burden of proof does not apply to Wikipedia articles. Every fact must be backed by reputable sources, and the burden lies with the editor making a claim to prove it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having spent some time trying to validate this article, I am convinced that this is either a hoax or that it refers to an extremely obscure person. The sourced references may be bonafide, but not everyone mentioned in a publication is notable. Delete unless someone besides the creators of this article can ensure that this is not an obscure non-notable person or a hoax. Comments by the above editor regarding gravity and that "perhaps he is obscure" strengthens my conviction.--Ezeu 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why does everyone try so hard? --Chronicidal 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verification from reliable sources. Fan-1967 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why aren't those sources reliable? --§m¡lª¢k 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they amount to a handful of people saying "I saw it in a book." Given the stupendous number of websites that devote huge amounts of space to every religious or philosophical teacher that ever lived, it is inconceivable that not one even mentions this guy. Possibility 1: he's the only religious teacher in history to never be mentioned on the web. Possibility 2: The whole thing is a hoax. Add in the fact that the author of the article is a proven and admitted liar, and the conclusion is inescapable. Fan-1967 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is, at present, impossible to separate fact from fiction. I don't believe a word written by Pythonriot, not least because the references to Mohit in the articles to which this makes reference were in several cases added by Pythonriod - it defies belief that long-standing articles would have missed such a figure had it been attested in the sources. Also, the article claims as fact the baptism of Constantine by Silvester I, which is generally accepted to be fiction. The supposed book cover is a blatant bit of Photoshopping. Unless a genuine authority can come in and essentially start again I think we're better off without this strange mix of (maybe) fact and fiction. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cronoyuha (talk · contribs), Trivialord (talk · contribs), Ben2ben90 (talk · contribs) are now indef-blocked for hoax vandalism. Any other involved socks should be notified at my Talk or WP:ANI. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now: it is always better to have missing articles than misleading articles. It could always be undeleted later if someone widely trusted manages to look up the rather obscure references and discovers that this isn't a hoax, though I have to say I consider it unlikely. — Haeleth Talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have nothing to add that hasn't been said... either a hoax or unverifiable, take your pick. --Kinu t/c 03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources the dubious. GizzaChat © 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, or rather move to BJAODN. Sanskrit mohita means "bewildered, deluded". enough said :) dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODNing this would be BEANS. --Ezeu 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to BJAODN. Any hoax which could stand unheeded despite elaboration for months and even when it breaks the bounds of credibility to remain unquestioned for nearly a week shows sufficient guile and subterfuge to be placed in this hallowed hall of dubious dupes.
  • Delete content, but please create Wiktionary entry per Dbachmann. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--D-Boy 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax HomeTOWNboy 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suitification[edit]

Neologism and non-notable CraigF 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -as per nom -- Whpq 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable term. Nobody says that. It's been put in a suite. -Royalguard11Talk 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 36 Google hits says it all.--4.231.243.121 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaserHub[edit]

This is just an advert for a business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragnim (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete This lasertag facility doesn't merit any notability. --Porqin 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local business, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN, advertising, very little content in any event. Knowing Is Half The Battle 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E&T Pairing[edit]

Not notable (WP:NN). Also violates WP:V and likely WP:OR. --Crisu 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manzorus[edit]

A page about a sword from a book (which needs its notability checked). Was copied from an entry at List of fictional swords. Is it really necessary? Ethii 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is not clear that the book or author are notable enough for articles or inclusions in lists, but the sword definitely doesn't need an article of its own. JPD (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can't list every weapon from every little series/show/game/ect in its own article. -Royalguard11Talk 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mucksavage[edit]

Seems like a violation of WP:NEO to me. Dark Shikari 13:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:SNOW.  RasputinAXP  c 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aría[edit]

Okay... bear with me here. This is a very long article that obviously some people have put a lot of time into. It describes a supposed "sociological experiment" in Baltimore, Maryland that ran from 2001 to 2003. The problem is... as far as I can tell the article is fiction, or at least describes something that has not been mentioned in print (or even blogs apparently). It lists 3 references, none of which mention this project, that I can tell. The names of the 3 academics who supposedly conducted it get no Google results outside Wikipedia [24], [25], [26]. I'm not going to venture a guess as to the reason this elaborate apparent hoax was written, but it definently doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 13:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Two of the references cited are blogs which have nothing to do with the article content, and the other reference only supports one tangential sentence in the article and makes no reference to the sociological experiment. It may be worthwhile to ask the contributors why they added this content to Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. No sources cited that actually verify the article and the experiment as described is unlikely to pass ethical standard on experiments on humans. -- Whpq 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two of the article contributors' histories make interesting and suggestive reading... Vizjim 14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, garbage. Proto::type 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. More of the hoax stuff perpetrated by the people who have been salting Wikipedia with nonsense about the Eyre/Heller families, which have been deleted, as well. And thanks for the suggestion to review the contributors' histories, as it led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowlton Estate, below. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete made up in school one dayHipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fast. Funny experiment I suppose but not for WP. rootology 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of verification.--Isotope23 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth. Hoax.--Toffile 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't salt, it's a common enough word. Just redirect to Aria and lock the redirection page. rootology 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:HOAX and WP:NFT. Create the redirect after this article is deleted (it's easier that way). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Naconkantari 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, move to Hellboy (animated series) as there's apparently two, not just one (which would be "animated film"). --james(talk) 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellboy animated[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dark Shikari 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for now. Imdb shows the two animated films in post-production, so odds are they'll be released in some format.Bjones 13:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it should at least be moved to an appropriate title. "Hellboy animated" does not sound like much of a movie title; how about "Hellboy (animated film)" or the like? Dark Shikari 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as announced and under way productions, but rename to their proper titles (or at least to Hellboy (animated film) as suggested by Dark Shikari). 23skidoo 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, agreed, the article's title leaves something to be desired.Bjones 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I learned about this project from the page and then was able to research futher --PatHaugen 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it HAS to go- merge it in to the Hellboy article perhaps- but I've seen promotinal stuff around and some small articles in Wizard so keep. Palendrom 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move, and tag This needs a predictor boilerplate attached to it, plus (as everyone else has said) it needs a better title, like Hellboy (animated series). --JB Adder | Talk 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EConceal[edit]

Vanispamvertisement. Dark Shikari 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tenders. – Avi 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invited public tenders[edit]

I was unable to verify that this term is used in the way described. The sources provided by the author don't use this term and don't establish the author's claim that the pre-qualification criteria are "subjective," which seems the only reason for this particular article to exist. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Although the phrase is not used in this precise way, I believe this concept exists in UK Government work tendering too. AlexTiefling 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So should the article be moved instead to a more appropriate page or merged with Tenders? At the present time there is nothing more than a stub. I agree that the concept should be covered at Wikipedia. I am wary of this particular article because it is part of a POV-pushing campaign by its author, who is a bit paranoid. [27] JChap (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't scrutinised the Tenders article in detail, but pre-qualification lists such as S-Cat deserve reference, as do any Canadian variations. But I agree with your appraisal of this article as written. Now voting Delete. AlexTiefling 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a minor local usage. Don't tell me, it's the work of WikiWoo (talk · contribs), right? Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- One user's made-up category name for government contracts on which only certain suppliers are asked to bid. Might be good for a paragraph under Tenders but where do you go from there? Agree with JChap that this is part of one user's POV-pushing campaign. --Gary Will 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you know he's actually starting to grow on me... JChap (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tenders Right now this article is litte more than a dictionary entry. I think it should just be merged into the "Tenders" article.
  • Merge as above. Pretty standard system of tendering contracts for specific and technical jobs (ie bridge construction and specialty work) for municipalities and other governments, but this may not be the specific term for it. Tony Fox (speak) 20:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. It should also be expanded to include other schemes and terms that relate. This is the biggest public activity governments do and the way most of public money is spent. Its important information everyone should have access too with clarity and broaded scope of public knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs)
  • Merge as above. Agree the overall subject is notable. The UK system is called Best value, which replaced Compulsory Competitive Tendering. Pre-qualification criteria include looking at the contractor's track record including experience of similar projects, which is deemed to be subjective. Addhoc 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to DDR SDRAM. - Bobet 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MDDR[edit]

Neologism? Not sure, but it doesn't make any claim to widespread use or notability. Dark Shikari 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I created the article here because I stumbled on the term in Freescale (semiconductors manufacturer) manuals and it was hard do find the definition on Internet. Besides, doing a Google search for MDDR memory, I saw that the term is used by some other manufacturers. -- Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 13:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unclear dicdef. --Metropolitan90 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DDR SDRAM, possibly mention there if we can get a good source. Luna Santin 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into DDR SDRAM and redirect. I'm not familiar with deletion wikiquette. Since I'm the person who created the article, may I simply redirect it before waiting for other persons votes? -- Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge, as original author agrees & there are no calls for keeping this as an independent article. --Karnesky 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn - redirected to Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan (Washington Metro). Proto::type 15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodley Park[edit]

Are neighborhoods notable? I'm not sure, but I live in Washington D.C. and I'm not sure I've ever heard of this place beyond its name and metro stop. If every neighborhood has to have an article in Wikipedia, they'd run out of room! Dark Shikari 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This subway stop is notable enough because of its unique design, name change controversy and the accident that happened. Also, other stops on the line have articles, and for consistency's sake it makes sense to keep it there. SliceNYC 14:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The original article I nominated was NOT the one currently being displayed when you click on the link. Apparently, the article already existed, and someone deleted the article I nominated and put a redirect (to a perfectly fine, proper article) in its place. So now the AFD is moot. Dark Shikari 14:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Chocolat[edit]

Vanispamvertisement. Dark Shikari 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NN, WP:SPAM. --Porqin 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one hit on Gnews, looks like an incidental mention: [28]. Doubt it passes WP:CORP. Luna Santin 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's a very unexpected place for a reference to them to turn up, considering they're UK-based. - makomk 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a reprint of an FT article, best I can tell. That almost constitutes "notable". But not for the existing content. Argyriou 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedyable? Similar advert deleted before as copyvio. Re-created (although apparently re-written) by same user, also linkspammed other articles. Femto 15:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad for a non-notable company. It looks like it belongs on an "about us" page, but I can't seem to pin it down as a copyvio. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It's still an ad, and is still written in first person. Argyriou 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I vaguely remember reading an eligible feature or article about them in a UK newspaper, but I can't remember which one. (My mind could well be playing tricks on me, though.) In any case, Google News doesn't seem to be much good for finding past references to things in the news, and this company has been around for a while - does anyone have a way of checking for past newspaper (and other news) references? - makomk 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... front-page article on The Telegraph Business Club website about them (case study), and their website was mentioned on forbes.com's Best of the Web (though that doesn't help, really). If they really have an "100,000-strong chocolate tasting club", I must say that's quite impressive too. - makomk 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be notable enough to justify having an article under WP:CORP, but with this content it still fails WP:SPAM. Femto 12:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current version. Reads like a commercial. Needs to be rewritten from scratch. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They had a leaflet distributed with Amazon deliveries in the UK for the holiday season - I don't think this constitutes endorsement, though... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus anyone?[edit]

  • It's been 5 days. I think it's possible for a Hotel Chocolat article to be written which is worth keeping in Wikipedia, but this article, and probably any produced by Cpbishop are not that article. Oh, and he linkspammed Chocolate again today. Argyriou 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not closed, but I will cast another call to Delete this spamvertisement. --Karnesky 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PressMart[edit]

Advertisement for a website with no Alexa ranking. Kimchi.sg 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Real Football[edit]

This article features blatant advertising and possible copyright violations. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David James Baird[edit]

Non-notable freelance journalist, only 42 Google hits for full name. Kimchi.sg 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 13:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalist with solid career in major daily newspapers a worthy social commentator. Barrison
    If such a journalist had a solid career in "major daily newspapers", he would, for one, get more google results. Dark Shikari 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sun News Pictorial was a newspaper with the largest circulation in Australia. Barrison
    Lots of journalists worked for The Sun News Pictorial, it doesn't make them notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Even if someone is or was a journalist for a major newspaper, that does not imply automatic notability. Dark Shikari 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The press is known as the "Fourth Estate" its influence "Watergate", for instance, can be powerful. A person does not have to be a household name to have had a significant impact. The number of hits on google must be kept in proportion and should not be used as an exclusive measure. Barrison
  • Delete -- nothing unusual or noteworthy about his journalistic career. NawlinWiki 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from Google Zeitgeist and taking into consideration that "Wikipedia" rates well, the majority of google users only seem interested in holidays and "famous" celebrities. The definitions of fame and notoriety will be the topic of ceaseless debate. Baird's major successes were pre google. However, to maintain the "integrity" of Wikipedia I am happy to accept the judges' decision. An interesting test case. Barrison 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While he worked for Australia's biggest newspaper, he doesn't seem to have won any awards such as a Walkley or achieved any special distinction as a journalist in Australia or elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand the concern over little internet information being available, however a search of the newspaper section of the State Library of Victoria would reveal a volume of work by this journalist. In the world of showbusiness a journalist who promotes an artist often contibutes to their success. Barrison 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Factiva and the Aus NZ Reference Centre don't have any significant results for his name. He is simply a not notable journalist, his website is not notable and certainly does not look like the website of an accomplished, notable journo. Under your criteria (merely being a member of the press, giving celebrities publicity etc), all journalists would qualify for an article. I strongly encourage you to read WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability to get an understanding of where other editors are coming from. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a not notable journalist. Also, there seems to be verifiability issues. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2006

(UTC)

  • The comment that the website does not "look like the website of an accomplished, notable journo" seems to bring into contention whether Baird was a journalist at all based on non-appearance on the internet. A manual search of the newspaper section of SLV will reveal many articles. As in previous comments I have to agree with the idea that he has not been acclaimed as John Pilger or Peter Oborne, for instance. Barrison 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. -- I@n 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after foods[edit]

I'm not sure about this, but this listcruft is getting out of hand... does the author even think this will be remotely maintainable? Dark Shikari 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I think it will be maintainable. I knew someone would throw up an AfD as soon as I created it, hence I included the See Also section, which is a list of articles similar to this one, some of which also went through the AfD process and were considered to be valid at the end of it. Superbo 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If other similar lists survived AfD, this probably can. I'll see what other Wikipedians have to say in that case. Dark Shikari 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bands_named_after_places Superbo 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Strong Keep. I don't think it will be that hard to maintain, there's probably only like 100-200 notable bands named foods and after you get them all then it's just a matter of adding new ones as they come along. It is pretty crufty though. Recury 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mispelt "week". I corrected your spelling, for you.--Oswellm 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually "weak" is the correct spelling. Recury 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it may well be maintainable, but that doesn't mean it has any kind of encyclopaedic value. Proto::type 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So all those other articles should be deleted too? Superbo 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see any encylcopedic value in a list of bands that have nothing in common but happen to have a particular reference in their name. MLA 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Superbo 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment despite the implication I did indeed see above and I still chose to recommend delete as I still think that this list does not have any encyclopedic value despite the arguments of Superbo. I also believe that some of the other lists should be deleted. Thanks to Dark Shikari for refuting Superbo in a civil manner. MLA 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why not a list of bands named after places? If we begin to list bands this way, we shoud have an infinite amount of lists! --Neigel von Teighen 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A list like this one you mean? Nice of you to click around this page before commenting. Move to disregard above two votes, as their following comments have already been refuted in this discussion. Superbo 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Their comments have not been "refuted" at all: they believe that those other lists should also be deleted. Dark Shikari 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But they're wrong, or at least don't agree with the consensus on the existing AfD discussions. Btw no offence but I don't like what your new sig does to the pages in edit. Superbo 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto --TorriTorri 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is so what WP:NOT is all about. This list is trivial, indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic information. Even if there were a need for an article on bands named after foods, I doubt we'd need this list. Agent 86 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who cares! Unencyclopedic. Who really cares what bands are named after foods. This just isn't needed. Let's add List of bands with colors in the title. These just are uneeded. Ridiculous. -Royalguard11Talk 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stongest of Keeps per I care and the couple of other contributors it saw today probably care and so on. Superbo 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment These are all just "for your interest" articles. They contain no encyclopedic value whatsoever. -Royalguard11Talk 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find this sort of thematic grouping interesting, but it's trivial, not encyclopaedic. Doesn't belong here. GassyGuy 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep. The comparison to the geographic band names list is an excellent one and provides real AfD precedent for keeping this list. This list should stay because it is an interesting list useful to all who seek topical band name data. People who seek that information are a relatively large group. If this is deleted, the geographic list should be nominated. There is no daylight between these two lists. Erechtheus 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Finally. Thank you for seeing sense. I notice that the other voters feel so strongly about the issue that none of the other band-name list articles have been nominated or re-nominated for AfD. Superbo 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, that one is just as unencyclopedic and needs to go. GassyGuy 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (listcruft) --Karnesky 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. Proto::type 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marathons In India[edit]

I tried to speedy this ad but the author removed the speedy notice. Dark Shikari 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Ø To complete the race, do not take a taxi/lift in the middle course of the race :)" -- Darn, they already have me figured out. --Porqin 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario[edit]

Obviously Ontario has regional public works commissioners. They will change form time to time. We can look them up on the Ontario municipal website if we need to know the current name. Holders will never qualify per WP:BIO on the grounds of holding this office. Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At a quick glance it seems like these people are appointed, not elected, which at this level of government makes them nn in my book.
  • Comment You should take a better look. The Article is about an association and not about the people or their appointment or election.WikiWoo 18:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You should take a better look. The Article is about an association and not about the bureaucrats themselves. If you are suggesting editing the names out that's different. But to censor the existance of the association seems a bit extreem.WikiWoo 18:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an association. It is not about individuals and its not Biographic and not about the Bureaucrats themselves but about their association.WikiWoo 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OzLawyer 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you have not provided any reasons.WikiWoo 18:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes I have. "Per nom" means following the same reasoning as the nominator. OzLawyer 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A non-notable association which fails WP:ORG with non-notable individuals who fail WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This association manages over $10 Billion Dollars a year in Public Works in Ontario. That's more than most etire countries spend in a year.WikiWoo 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church Street[edit]

The author of this article created a whole series of spam Street articles, which I nominated for speedy and were removed. However, he added an extra sentence of information here, which prevented it from being speedied. I highly doubt we need articles on any streets except perhaps the most notable, like Wall Street. Dark Shikari 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I disagree. I think principal streets of major towns, cities, and the main neighbourhoods in large cities are noteworthy. I don't know enough about this particular example to know if it meets that level, but I think it may well be salvageable in principle. AlexTiefling 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as streets aren't inherently notable. At the least needs sourcing, expanding claim of notability, and a page move because Church Street is one of the most popular names for a street in the UK and there are plenty of them. MLA 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Church and Wellesley which is the redirect of Church Street (Toronto) unless it needs to be made into a disambig. WilyD 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Church Street" to me means the one in my hometown of Fredericton, New Brunswick, which is fairly minor anyway. :) Maybe if Wikipedia expands tenfold again and more individual street articles show up, we could do it and make this a dab or something. Kirjtc2 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - San Francisco's Church Street is the one and only "Church Street" to me. Capit 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's trying to be an historic neighborhood article but with no references and only one notable outlink, meh. Smerge with Norfolk, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant street. JYolkowski // talk 23:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. Wickethewok 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm & Sound[edit]

I prodded this article because it is only one sentence, and the information is already included on the page for Basic Channel. There was some discussion on the Talk page with Ragudave about the deletion, and then the prod was removed by an IP editor. Aguerriero (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proto. JPD (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd klaskin[edit]

Fails WP-BIO abakharev 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tofutti[edit]

Minor food, liked by minor character, in minor show? Doesn't deserve its own article. Dark Shikari 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's already mentioned in that character's entry on List of characters from Mr. Show and that seems to be its only claim to "fame". SliceNYC 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only because I am fairly certain that there is a lot more to this food than it being referenced on a TV show. Maybe someone could research it and expand on it? PT (s-s-s-s) 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without protection - Tofutti is a real food; in 1994 my doctor suggested that I give up ice cream and have Tofutti instead. It's nasty stuff. The current article has no merit; better that it be a redlink that someone with an interest in the food could create a good article from. Captainktainer * Talk 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also a brand name, so WP:CORP would have to apply, yes? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nice job, Bikeable. Captainktainer * Talk 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well-known food among the health conscious/vegetarian/vegan crowds. I have rewritten the article as a stub. bikeable (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bikeable seems to have made it into an article deserving of staying. It no longer falls under Dark Shikari's reasons for deleteion. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any company traded on the American Stock Exchange must not be deleted.
  • Keep. Popular cultural expression and food choice to the V-crowds and M-crowds. NYcine 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice job, Bikeable. MarkBuckles 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as nonsense. Proto::type 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday February 16, 2006[edit]

Patent nonsense, but the author keeps removing my speedy tag. Dark Shikari 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeronautics Defense Systems - Orbiter[edit]

Reads like an ad. Dark Shikari 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up, only facts now.

  • Keep — Wouldn't a name of "Orbiter Mini UAV" be more appropriate? — RJH (talk)
  • Weak keep if improved to level of Jordan Falcon a comparable regional vehicle. See also Aeronautics Defense Systems - Aerostar. Most of the US UAV articles at unmanned aerial vehicle are better but some are mere catalog listings like this one, too. These should be better articles, or just part of a list. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, copyright violation of [29], I would also like to nominate the following articles for the same reason:

I'll start tagging the articles and pics as copyvio too now. - Dammit 10:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC) No longer applicable, user is in the process of proving permission. - Dammit 11:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del After User:PatGallacher in the talk page have made a painstaking and qualified research, and convincingly (and politely) proved it is a hoax, he was covered with insults from the contributor. So I am deleting it with prejudice. It is one thing to make a hoax in good humor, it is totally another to make it in a highly insulting way. (I am leaving the talk:James Mock for reference for some time.) `'mikka (t) 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Mock[edit]

hoax, non-verifiable PatGallacher 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a hoax, at the very least it's non-verifiable, see the article's talk page for a full discussion. The main reference quoted, "My Search for Celtic's John", does not mention this person, and the article's "defender" has persistently declined to produce any verifiable source to back this article. Some other details are fishy. PatGallacher 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We can't take chances on hoaxes. A Google search for "James Mock" comes up with several people, none which seem to match the one described in the article. Also, the downright insulting defence on the talk page ("you pompous, arrogant, douchebag") doesn't sound to me like someone defending a legitimate article. The same defender later admits: "I cannot guarantee the accuracy of all the content of this article". Neither can any of us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, unless references appear. Mr Stephen 15:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep omg! There's more than one of you! Darwin got it wrong! This article is not a hoax. You have two of us on the discussion page stating a knowledge of James Mock(as a poet who wrote about John Thompson). I have looked at the policies of wikipedia and found the rather ridiculous policy on non-verifibility. I find it odd that what appears to be an accomplished and researched article can have it's references declared unsatisfactory by ONE POMPOUS, ARROGANT DOUCHEBAG(a classification into which you ALL fall). FYI, referring to someone as such is not a defence of an article, it is an apt description of said LOSER. I feel that the references should be double checked if you want wikipedia to have any credibility. I also suggest that the parish records for births/baptisms in Kirkliston be checked. This would confirm what TWO sources have stated, i.e. that James Mock was indeed a historical figure. I am worried that perhaps the fact that James mock is GAY is what is speeding this witchhunt along. Is Pat Gallacher HOMOPHOBIC and a total loser? I find it interesting that Andrew Lenahan manages to look up google to verify the article, yet Pat only went as far as supposedly checking one book in a library, also, apparently only checking the index and not bothering to read it. I think due to the nature of the material, i.e. that it isn't a well known subject matter, should allow it's continued presence here - sources will be few and much of the man's life and background will be from word of mouth or personal knowledge of him. I also expect that it is verifiable when not looked at by homophobes. Until the references are at least double checked and a more thorough investigation into the content is undertaken then the article should remain. When you all get back from burning books with your fellow nazi luddites you should perhaps consider this... and perhaps also get jobs, lives, girlfriends, laid, etc.

P.S. You guys suck ass and so does wikipedia... and stop calling me a 'defender'... we're not playing D&G at your place jackass. Why should I be able to verify everything in an article I didn't write about a man I never met? What is the purpose of wikipedia supposed to be anyway?(rhetorical) Theolatina 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Totally unverifiable. Note to Theolatina: Angry tantrums are not a substitute for WP:Verifiable references from WP:Reliable Sources. Those standards for Wikipedia articles are not negotiable. We have an article created by a user who's never contributed anything else, being defended by two other editors who have never contributed anything else. That won't do it, no matter how many insults you throw. Fan-1967 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I'm a pompous, arrogant douchebag. And because one would think that the works of a poet with such a history and following would actually turn up in a Google search, which they don't. Misses verifiability by a substantial amount. Tony Fox (speak) 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Theolatina, one more insult, and you will be blocked from editing. `'mikka (t) 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Day School[edit]

NN primary school, was deprodded with the explanation "school". There is no claim to notability that I could find in the article. --Kuzaar-T- C- 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primary schools are not suitable for Wikipedia articles. Not notable, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Proto::type 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I'd speculate that the PROD was removed because deletion of well-formed school articles is a often controversial topic. WP:PROD states the process is for non-controversial deletes. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Proto- elementary schools are rarely notable, and this one is no exception. -- Kicking222 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "I'm with Proto" is my mantra. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. Mr Stephen 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A very few primary schools might be notable, e.g. historically important schools founded by famous educators to demonstrate an important educational philosophy. Maria Montessori's "Children's House" in San Lorenzo, Rome, Summerhill, Froebel's 1837 Play and Activity Institute in Germany are notable. Most elementary schools are not notable, and this one isn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder whho believes that this article contains no assertion of notability. I also didn't see any at the school's website. My edit summary when I assigned stubs on new page patrol said I was considering prodding in a day or two. Work got busy and that period turned into two weeks. GRBerry 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; article makes no effort to claim notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. How is it anything but indiscriminate if every elementary school is automatically entitled to an entry without any critical thought? Agent 86 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Not Applicable
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).No
3. Travel guides. Not even close
4. Memorials. Nope
5. News reports. Not Applicable
6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Not
7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. No
8. Instruction manuals - Not Applicable
9. Internet guides - No
10. Textbooks and annotated texts - Not a chance
11. Plot summaries - Nope
WP:NOT does NOT mean "articles about things I am unfamilar with or don't care about". I sincerely hope that those using WP:NOT as a rationalization will provide an explanation for their vote above and specify which one of the above criteria this article fails. Otherwise, I hope that we will see votes retracted. Alansohn 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I remind you to Assume Good Faith, Alansohn, as I have for comments like this before. Accusing people interested in cleaning up the dictionary of wanting to delete "everything they're unfamiliar with" is bad form. Additionally, I would like to point out that the list you so kindly provided us with is certainly not a list comprehensive to the point of exclusion, it only provides a handful of examples that are particularly bad repeat offenders of what Wikipedia is not. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refering to WP:NOT without indicating which part of WP:NOT is being violated is a questionable demonstration of good faith. The WP:NOT criteria indicate that the list included are items for which consensus has been reached. Items not on the list place a greater burden on those appealing to WP:NOT to justify why they should not be reatined as is. Alansohn 23:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not to shock anyone... but it also will not end if one school article is deleted.--Isotope23 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, disagree with merge. Keep or Delete, but this school has no relevance or importance in the context of Farmington Hills, Michigan. It really stands or falls on its own merits.--Isotope23 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor and School Project Policy. Do not delete schools. Capit 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is not and has never been a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. Verifiability is. All data in this article is factually verifiable.  ALKIVAR™ 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article, and how are we supposed to cover Jewish education in Farmington Hills without covering this school? Kappa 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable primary school Jaranda wat's sup 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please article is written well and verifiable too notability is a opinion matter Yuckfoo 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a bloody primary school. NN. -- GWO
  • Keep. A verifiable article about about a real place. Meets WP:V requirements as pointed out above. -- Nicodemus75 07:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some comments above claim that the information in the article is verifiable. However, as far as I can see, the only attributed source that might help with verification is the school website. The policy WP:VERIFY states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and the guideline WP:RS states "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources.". Where are the third-party sources that back up the various claims in the article? I think that, as it stands, the article is marginal on policy at WP:VERIFY. Mr Stephen 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is a perfectly acceptable article for a (Jewish) school of which there are thousands (of non-Jewish) similar ones listed on Wikipedia. Any Jewish school that has existed for almost fifty years already makes it notable. If this article were to be deleted then all the entries in Category:Conservative Jewish day schools or in all of Category:Jewish day schools should go which would be ludicrous. Note: This nomination makes no sense. If it is allowed then say goodbye to all that's in Category:Schools. Finally, it is important to realize that Notability is relative and cannot be "judged" by just one standard. What is notabale to Jews may not be notable to Mongolians and vice versa etc. IZAK 10:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- I disagree entirely. If by your above argument you mean that we should have either no or extremely lax standards that we should hold articles containing information, that defeats the purpose of having a level of encyclopedicness to the project. If having a standard, however, means that some articles aren't up to it, perhaps that implies that the subject is not appropriate for this encyclopedic project. To address the second issue, notability of a subject can indeed vary from group to group, and please take notice that in the essay on notability, the fundamental policy is cited that one must have been the subject of independant verifiable scrutiny, which this subject cannot claim- its verifiable source (the NCES information) mentions it only in passing and cannot be claimed to be solely a study on this subject alone. I agree with you that many of the subjects in the Schools category have a shaky claim to inclusion. If you feel this is the case then I encourage you to go through the proper processes and nominate the questionable articles for deletion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Schools should be listed, in my opinion, only if they have certain achievements, impact or historical significance (per WP:NOT). I don't find any of it in the Hillel day school. I also think that most of the schools listed in Wikipedia should be deleted, unless they meet these criteria. --Gabi S. 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per IZAK. Evolver of Borg 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability is made (even relative to a lower notability standard for Jewish schools, as some people have proposed). Fireplace 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and what??! Wikipedia is not paper - this deletionist tendency is getting absurd. --Leifern 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools have a far more inherent level of notability above and beyond the thousands of other article categories in Wikipedia. There is no inherent issue with the article or its contents. The failure to develop (and agree upon) objective criteria for schools has left this debate in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested. This is just another example of deletecruft. Alansohn 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I must disagree on strong terms with most of what you say. If you hold the opinion that this article is being included while inappropriate less-notable subject are not, then I remind you that the AFD process is every bit as available to those other subjects as it is to this one. Further, I would like to remind you, after reading your accusations of this article being "left in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested", and how this is "deletecruft", of one of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding assuming good faith of editors who disagree, and additionally the possibility that people who disagree with you might merely have different standards for what they perceive to be a subject about which an encyclopedic article may be written. There is a gulf of difference in the idea that there's some secret brotherhood of deletionists out to get all of the valuable articles, and the idea that a large portion of the editor community does not thing that a primary school with no claim to notability is not appropriate material for a Wikipedia article (see WP:NOT, namely "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.) --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment....has left this debate in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested. This is just another example of deletecruft. You owe a lot of people an apology for your poor remarks. —Encephalon 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this entry does not help our goal of being an encyclopedia Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hipocrite. Zeq 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement for a private business. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: School is a private school, not a private business. If this is justification for vote to Delete, I hope it will be retracted. Alansohn 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This (admittedly apparently not-for-profit) business is announcing the availability of their services on Wikipedia. That's advertising. The fact that it is a school is hardly an exception to WP:NOT a soapbox/adboard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I have to remind you yet again to assume good faith. Your constant assumption of bad faith and policy violation on the part of the authors of school related articles is troublesome, and frankly, you should know better. It is a patent assumption of bad faith to categorically state the author of an article about this school is somehow "...a business announcing the availability of services..." Since I am fairly certain that you are not suggesting that the school itself somehow wrote the article, I can only guess that you are talking about its' author. Please provide evidence that the author is "advertising" on behalf of the school, rather than simply creating an article about a school which is like THOUSANDS of others to be found on wikipedia. Unless you have such evidence, this accusation is offensive and uncivil. In this particular case, it also violates WP:BITE.--Nicodemus75 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The intent of the author isn't really in question. The author may have been a school project member working down a list, a former student, a teacher at the school, a paid advertising agent, or the very unlikely result of a random letter generator. I really don't care. This is a business offering a service, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to offer them a venue to announce the availability of their service, regardless of who wrote the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No matter how many times you repeat it, the school is a private school, not a private business. It is a 501(c)3 charitable organization that "depends on philanthropic support to fulfill its mission". If this is justification for vote to Delete, I sincerely hope it will be retracted. Alansohn 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still relies on recuiting students, as opposed to students being routed to it by the state. A not-for-profit business is still a business. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you point me to where in WP:CORP it specifies that charitable, not-for-profit organizations and schools should be treated under the same criteria as for-profit businesses? Alansohn 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you show me where in WP:CORP where it says that not-for-profit businesses are exempt? Alternately, can you show me a more-applicable notability standard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to delete schools. If anything schools attract a wider audience to Wikipedia when students find an article on their own school here. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siensor -- Librarianofages 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most schools are notable enough for WP, as is this. bbx 04:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DP. --Usgnus 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm curious... what part of WP:DP are you referring to?--Isotope23 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, this is an important school. Bahn Mi 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- In what context are you reading any claim to the school's importance in the article? I've gone over it several times, and have seen none. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. —Encephalon 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly useful article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable primary school. JoshuaZ 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Allow for organtic growth and inheirently notable is are lousy arguements, nothing is inheirently keepable. School/no school this is advertisement. As someone else pointed out, this is not a public educational institution, so its not a default routing point to an education institution as required by law just about everywhere in the united states. Fails WP:CORP Kevin_b_er 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Vegaswikian 02:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK. 172 | Talk 05:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor, Yuckfoo, Izak, and MPerel. The subject appears to be notable enough to a particular community. Dauster 10:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notability within a community or limited group does not imply notability, and, as stated above, is mostly irrelevant. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You're right, notability is irrelevant. WP:NN is an essay and "notability" is nowhere listed in WP:DP as a valid criterion for the deletion of a school article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicodemus75 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education. Jon513 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll have to help me here. There are only about seven sentences in the section you link to, but I cannot find anything that suggests this school is a strong keep. Where do you mean? Mr Stephen 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exley Family[edit]

I believe this should be deleted as per the "Genealogical entries" section (within Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) in WP:WWIN. The family do not appear to be notable enough to be worth an article. - Ladybirdintheuk 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer Diablo 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Trend[edit]

Was on prod, editor removed without comment, nn notable website, fails Ghits, vanity Ávríl 00:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't want to vote on this because I'm now on staff there, but I'll point out (for better or worse) that it has an Alexa rank of 38,180 [34]. Compare with PCgamer.com, which has an Alexa rank of 67,050 [35] --Alan Au 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually, PCG website is not a good comparison, since that isn't its main medium. --Alan Au 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)--Alan Au 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Alan Au, also the site's association with GoneGold (which was notable when it was alive), and that it passed standards checks for gamerankings and metacritic. --SevereTireDamage 02:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep PC Gamer is notable on the basis of its magazine, not its website, so it's not really relevant. I'm not sure abotut eh vanity claims as this article has had several editors, not just Alan Au and he didn't create the article. The fact that Metacritic and Game Rankings consider it reliable is enough for me to give borderline notability. Ace of Sevens 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Tony Bruguier 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if it is used by game rankings et all, it has enough noterity Owwmykneecap 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as the gamerankings info and the Starforce contraversy, let alone its history with Gone Gold and the inclusion of its reviews in game advertisments makes it a notable video game website. PunkChe 11:22 July 27, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neither Metacritic nor Game Rankings are reliable sources. There is no assertion of any kind of notability. An Alexa rank of 38,180 is not enough to prove notability. Fails WP:WEB. 'I like it' is not enough for an article to be suitable for an encyclopaedia - WP:NOT a web directory. Proto::type 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Proto. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable orchestras[edit]

This list is entirely subjective and does not define what "notable" means in this context. In fact, it can't define what notable means. The list is essentially an attempt to group together the best 20 or so orchestras in the world, but this simply cannot be done without defined parameters, and any attempt to group them together would be original research, or at least personal opinion. So, perhaps this page could be moved to "list of Orchestras", but there is already a category in existence for this very reason ("Category:Orchestras") AdamBiswanger1 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Perhaps rename to "List of orchestras", but certainly a useful page. Vote changed to Delete in light of information about the other, more complete, list. Though note that categories and lists are not interchangeable, and each have their own advantages (see WP:CLS). Dsreyn 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There actually is a List of symphony orchestras. I should've noted that in my nom--sorry AdamBiswanger1 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another commentGiven the recent revalation of the above mentioned article, I'm going to go ahead and prod it because I cannot foresee any objections, and I doubt that a consensus will be reached because of the lack of activity. It's pretty straightforward, really. AdamBiswanger1 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure I quite see the point of the prod, since the AfD is already in motion, and seems likely to result in a deletion anyway. Dsreyn 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that 2 unanimous votes is enough? AdamBiswanger1 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it ought to be sufficient, though one can never be sure. Dsreyn 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remudi[edit]

From what I gather, Remudi appears for a page or two and then dies. Unless the previous generation Ibara traveler is still alive, we're not going to get any more information about Remudi. As such, even though he is a Traveler, he is still a minor character and should not have his own article.--Rokuwa 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't really see what distinguishes the importance of this character from any other fictional character. Delete as a non-notable minor character. Wickethewok 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsuitable redirect target as he appears in two books, but apparently vigorously minor in both cases. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough information to have an article.--the ninth bright shiner talk 02:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulisse Provolo[edit]

This is not a notable fencer, therefore it must not be here. Arzach 2 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Ochsenhofer[edit]

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MRET water[edit]

Aside from the fact that the claims are laughable, this is advertising. One of the external links is forum spam - http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread/t-84693.html Ruaraidh-dobson 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Adspam for nn product. I'm almost tempted to BJAODN it, but I guess they're serious. Just delete. Fan-1967 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN it and delete it. Even though its serious, its still pretty funny. Dark Shikari 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think it's worth BJAODNing, it's not that funny. Ruaraidh-dobson 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and do not BJAODN, as it is not funny. Proto::type 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I wonder how much money they're making selling water for $100 a bottle? NawlinWiki 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this spam please not bjaodn material either really Yuckfoo 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Karnesky 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Counter-Strike maps[edit]

This article is about custom maps created by users for Counter-Strike. There's already a perfectly serviceable article on the maps at Counter-Strike maps. This is just a dumping ground for fans to dump their own fan-made maps. Vanityspamigamecruft. Not sourced, not notable, not verifiable, WP:NOT a game guide. Delete. This information should NOT be merged into the Counter-Strike maps article, as the maps on this article are not official. Proto::type 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think there's probably an article to be had on this topic, either on its own or as a section in Counter-Strike maps. However, the present article is really just an extended list of available unofficial maps. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried, I really did, to find more than three lines in this article to put into the Counter-Strike maps article. But everything other than the three line intorduction is gameguide stuff. Proto::type 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed with nom that these are unsourced and unverifiable. No claims of notability differentiating these maps from any other unofficial fan creations. While a well-sourced section in a Counter-strike article may be appropriate for discussing independent map development, this article is not. Wickethewok 15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge parts into the main article about Counter-Strike maps. Map types such as FY and Surf are notable and popular within the CS community (FY moreso than Surfing, however..). Although the lists of maps are kind of useless (unless they have links attached to them, like fy_iceworld) I'd say. -- gakon5 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article fails too many policies and guidelines to mention. JimmyBlackwing 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone Custom maps are one of the main reasons why counter-strike is as popular today as it has ever been. For example we run a rats server which has over 25,000 individual users (thats users, not connections, of which there are hundreds of thousands) play on every year, specifically to play these custom rats maps. D6 not remove this section, it is a piece of gaming history! - 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.104.104 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Custom maps might play a role as to why Counter-Strike is so unique and popular, but the page is not sourced, and will be really hard to regulate over time. --angers 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Friday as copyright violation. Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal's Italian Bistro[edit]

Non-notable establishment. If I'm ever in the area I'll try the food (I do love good Italian food!), but just not notable enough for a mention on Wikipedia. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chains of Honor[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Pentasyllabic 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nom.: Call to Arms (Diablo II), another runeword article. --Pentasyllabic 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into an article about this aspect of the game, if there is one. AdamBiswanger1 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article doesn't comprise an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an article about an element of the game Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, describing how it is constructed and what its effects in the game are. Please find a reason for nominating it for deletion that can be related to the article. Uncle G 15:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft! To Uncle G, section 8 of the "indiscriminate collection" link given by Pentasyllabic specifically mentions that WP is not a video game guide. If this article were to remain, it would mean we (and by "we," I mean you, me, everyone who participates in AfD discussions, and WP in general) were endorsing an article on a piece of armor from a game, which means we'd be endorsing every piece of armor from every game, which means we'd be OK with having an individual article on every item in every video game ever made. I understand why you feel the article should be kept, but (as much as I love video games) I can't support an article on a single piece of equipment from a game. -- Kicking222 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is not a guide to a game. It is a purely descriptive article about an element of the game. Again, please don't abuse the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy to mean "not anything that I don't think should be here". If you want something deleted, please give a rationale that actually relates to the article rather than abusing this particular item of policy as some sort of catch-all. Please provide a rationale that explains how and why the article is unverifiable, original research, inherently non-neutral, or doesn't satisfy one of our notability criteria. Uncle G
  • Delete "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." --Porqin 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of which this article is. The word "how" occurs nowhere in the article, for one thing. Please find a reason for deleting this article that actually relates to the article. Uncle G 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need the word how to be in plaintext to ascertain it is a violation of the policy, I think this passage illustrates the how just nicely: "it requires the runes Dol, Um, Ber, and Ist to be inserted into a 4-socketed armor, in that order " --Porqin 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the recipe for the rune armour is gameguide information, as is the Uses section below. I love D2:LOD, but this is too specific. It belongs on something like Tome of Knowledge. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no good reason to delete this article. It looks like a good start. I'm rather disturbed that there's people on this subpage who seem to be arguing that, whether they believe it ought to be deleted or not, it's a "violation of policy" and therefore must be nuked. That's not how Wikipedia works, and a long way from how it ought to work. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, could you expand on your comment about "this is not how it works" a bit? The article is wholly without sources, provides opinions on how to play the game ("good return on investment"), and lacks both context (which is fixable) and relevance (it's too specific). The latter isn't policy, but our First Pillar seems to apply here. -- nae'blis 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, nobody seemed to have bothered making the comments you've just made. The overwhelming impression I've received has been, "Whether I like this article or not, my interpretation of policy says it needs to go", which is (as you know) Not How Wikipedia Works. You're right that the article is unsourced; I ought to rephrase my original statement. I've no objection to a sourced article on this subject. How's that? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've actually seen so many of these laetly that I thought someone had made those statements, but I took a minute to go back and look at the actual article. Thanks for keeping me/us honest. -- nae'blis 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In light of the discussion thread above, and the apparent balance, or possible lack thereof, between WP:FAITH vs WP:LAWYER, I wanted to state that this narrowly focused CVG-related article is WP:NOT and goes against WP:5P #1. I know many would say I just ironically WP:LAWYERed to support my arguement, but my 2 cents as a WP editor and my gut say delete. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per fuddlemark this article is not a violation of policy Yuckfoo 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dongyang Life[edit]

possibly non-notable.(user seems to create a lot of non-notable company pages) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dongyang Life Insurance[edit]

Same page as Dongyang Life that was listed above was redirected to this page created by the same user. Porqin 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Voors. (duplicate content) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Djv[edit]

Non-notable rapper; hasn't even sold one complete album --BaronLarf 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was close. AfD obviated by move - take to MfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Wikirank[edit]

A proposal to create ranks on Wikipedia. Dear God, what a terrible idea! the quicker this idea is dead and buried the better. Lurker say/said 15:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheedule[edit]

Non-notable software, see Wikipedia:Notability (software). Clearly doesn't fulfill any of the criteria for notability, being the creation of a few undergraduates and not a widely-distributed application Lurker say/said 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Software specifc to one institution. JPD (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPD. NawlinWiki 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. If it was at all notable (which it isn't), it could be merged to the specific institution (though it shouldn't be). --Karnesky 23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Syrthiss. JPD (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Harold Brown[edit]

Hoax, random vandalism, contested prod, generally complete bollocks. Page has largely been edited by User:Bad roo and User:Ultegra who simultaneously have started adding this guy's picture all over the place, including to Shoelaces, Ian Brown (swimmer), and Ian Brown (journalist). I ask for early closure once consensus is evident... but this is not speedyable unfortunately. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and thus keep. While the claims of not meeting WP:BIO are true enough on their face, WP:BIO itself is a only a guideline - even if it is to be used, a weak but real argument can be made for meeting it. The fact that this AFD was not closed after five days (indeed, it is now over ten) indicates that this is a tough decision, and I'm going to lean towards no consensus/keep. Keeping the page around does no harm, and while not as notable a person as Paris Hilton, it does seem likely that someone may come to Wikipedia one day looking for information about this person. The information is verifiable, it is not original research, and it adheres to a nuetral point of view. Were any of those three even remotely in doubt, a stronger case could be made for deletion, but the page as it exists seems to violate none of these. (P.S. The existence of suspicious sockpuppety "Keep" voters duly noted). Turnstep 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Monserratt[edit]

nn student politician and postgrad political operative. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--evrik 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "At the time of his death, he was Chief of Staff to a member of the Los Angeles City Council." City councilpeople are borderline, and their staff aren't really notable. It's sad that he died fairly young, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a stub and deserves to be developed more. I don't think this is a memorial, but rather a tribute to a rising political leader. Rlevse 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The telling word being "rising". He was not, a political leader, and as such, he fails WP:BIO. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One could argue that until he became President, Bill Clinton could be described as rising. The article could use some tightening up, but he was notable in his lifetime. His funeral was broadcast on television in Los Angeles.--evrik 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If one argued so, one would be wrong, since Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO... he does not meet the criteria for a bio article now and based on his current whereabouts I don't see any potential for future notability.--Isotope23 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eagle Scout, UCLA student body president, political operative - all admirable, but not especially notable. MysteryDog 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per MysteryDog. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per his involvement with an election dirty trick as cited here.--SarekOfVulcan 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Upon primary perusal, this entry seemed to be more appropriate for UCLAwiki (if such a thing exists). And after rereading the specifics of WP:BIO, he doesn't quite seem to fit any of the standards. However, the way the standards are written, activists would only fit into the "politics" category, which exclude local activists (many of whom already have Wikipedia articles) and others whose influence never extended beyond their own communities. For example, I'd hate to see my article on Michael Zinzun, who never held any office at all, deleted just because he was only active in Los Angeles. These types of figures seldom receive the media coverage they deserve, especially when they are more eminences grises, like Montserrat was, than politicians. The way the standards are written, they favor the "dominant history" and even worse, pop icons who have no lasting influence on society, just because they have a "cult following". Until we can get some standards for the inclusion of activists as political figures, Tentative Keep.--Rockero 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad story, but not notable for an encyclopedia entry. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment if this gets deleted, so should Michael Zinzun. Rlevse 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that's what Rockero was afraid of ... --evrik 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Michael Zinzun is definitely nn. Chris 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, actually Michael Zinzun is a bad comparison because from the number of non-trivial articles that have been written about him, he would appear to meet WP:BIO under the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" stipulation. No reason for "activists as political figures" standards, the current critera cover this just fine.--Isotope23 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteable. --MECU≈talk 00:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Fine, upstanding young man, accomplished much, died young. But not encyclopedic. There are two paragraphs dealing with a GPA dispute. Puh-lease. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of sad stories. -- GWO
  • Delete. To quote Rlevse, "rising political leader"? That's not a very strong claim to notability even for living persons (per WP:NOT a crystal ball), and in this case, we know for certain he's not going to rise any further. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was asked to look at this article by another user and render judgement. The first thing I did was make a google search. I was surprised by the number of hits that came up, and that wikipedia ws number one, a couple are referenced in the article. The New York Times has an article about him. He was also quoted by Time Magazine in a Texas election. His impact was also referenced by his boss. I think that it is appropriate to leave the article. More importantly, I think that articles like this, and the process that admins use to get rid of articles is shortsighted and unfair. This article may be short and limited in scope, but after reviewing the notability standards, I think it just squeaks by. Let me ask a question, "How many buildings do you need named after you to become notable?" Lloyd Monserratt has two. --South Philly 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment both of the articles you've mentioned would constitute a "trivial mention" per WP:BIO, the other source was a blog by the mayor he worked for, which isn't a reliable source in my estimation and is also trivial. Also, he does not have 2 buildings named after him. He has one building named after him and one "dedicated" to him. Regardless, having a building named after you does not satisfy any of the WP:BIO criteria. He seems like a credit to his community, but he just falls well below WP:BIO and thus should not be included here.--Isotope23 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the following test are passed, from Wikipedia:Notability (people):
    • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
    • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
    • Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?
    • Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?
--evrik 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would disagree with you on the first and second point because I think from all the links provided here (and what I've found looking around) all the mentions of Mr. Monserratt would be clasified as trivial. The newpaper articles mention him in passing or are obituary in nature. I don't see anything that establishes that he has achieved renown for newsworthy events. As for the Google Test/Verifiability... these are so called "Alternate tests" that have not gained any community consensus. Personally I don't think they have any value at all (the Google Test in particular is a rather poor marker of "notability") and as such are not a good indicator of "notabilty" or lack thereof.--Isotope23 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and I should add, there is currently an attempt to sway consensus by garnering numerical support for one side of the argument.--Isotope23 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus... I think it's important to alert people who are more familiar with this topic to comment on it. Otherwise there it's left to a small group of users to make the decision on behalf of the larger community. --evrik 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deserves further development. -Murcielago 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain your keep, and why it "deserves" any such thing. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much I agree with South Philly, above, but I think the article, while worthy of a wiki entry needs a bit of work to bring it to encyclopaedic standards, hence the "further development". --Murcielago 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Comment I am not going to be around for a few days - and the discussion on this will end before I come back. I just edited the article one last time. I feel like the article is worthy of keeping, and that Lloyd was notable. --evrik 18:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parts of the story might only seem to some to be interesting only for those around southern Cal. Even though I'm not from there, I find the story interesting and worth keeping here. --JohnDBuell 23:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Interesting. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are statements of everyone's opinions, not policy. I'm sure there are any number of people with biographies on Wikipedia I would NOT find interesting but I'd get shouted down quite loudly if I nominated them on AfD. --JohnDBuell 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should also be noted how far this page has evolved since the afd tag was applied: [38] --JohnDBuell 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that while it has "evolved" it still has not evolved into an article that meets WP:BIO. Multiple press mentions about one incident just don't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 04:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WP:BIO list is preceded by the following disclaimer in bold text: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." The subject of this biographical entry certainly received press coverage during his lifetime, but would have received much more had his personal mission and style not been to work behind the scenes supporting and influencing others. It would be a shame to exclude him because he wasn't a publicity hound. Measured in terms of his impact on others and, through them, on politics and the quality of life in Los Angeles and elsewhere in California, Monserratt's impact was enormous. No doubt future Wikipedia entries relating to the people he worked with and inspired will mention Monserratt's role in their lives, and it would be helpful to be able to cross-reference those entries with this one.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocreatordude (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have noticed a certain amount of bias and ignorance among wikipedia administrators. There are plenty of articles about middling white people, but an administrator who is ignorant about Latinos and their politics has free rein to try and get an article about a notable Latino deleted. If this article is deleted, it is a sad commentary on wikipedia.
Since there seems to be an anti-Latino bias going on here, we had better start to bulk up the bios of Nick Pacheco, Xavier Becerra and Ed Reyes, all of whom have bios shorter than Monserratt's.
--Zorro 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.167.151.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I refer you to WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF User:12.167.151.236, please read and follow those policies. An "Articles for Deletion" discussion is not the place for unfounded accusations (and I would add that if you spent a few weeks watching the AfD pages you would see there are just as many - if not more - deletions of articles about "middling white people" as you call them as there are about latinos, african americans, or any other ethnic group). Article length has nothing to do with it... Xavier Becerra in particular from your example above most definitely meets WP:BIO, no matter how short his article is. Lloyd Monserratt, for all the length of his article, does not meet WP:BIO that is the issue here.--Isotope23 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe, Isotope, MysteryDog, and GWO, each of whom cogently makes his/her point. Joe 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since making my comments a few days ago, the article has grown. I don't believe there is a consensus here and I think that with a lack of consensus we should, "Do No Harm" and leave the article in place. --South Philly 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it has grown, but I still don't see anything that meets WP:BIO. That is the essence of the problem with this article. All of the links/sources provided are either about his passing, trivial mentions in other articles, or transcripts of remarks from government meetings... none of this qualifies him under WP:BIO--Isotope23 13:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the size of the UCLA undergraduate electorate was 22,000 voters when he was elected. If he does not deserve to be listed on that basis, neither do the members of the first congress, whose districts contained not quite double that number of voters. There are also plenty of mayors whose electorate was smaller.--GaryCaliforniaetalk 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Borderline notablility, but unlimited space. Err on the side of do no harm. DrL 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer Diablo 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lismore (band)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to meet the press coverage requirement, plus 805 unique Ghits with the phrase "Lismore" new jersey band -wikipedia. AllMusicGuide recognizes them, too. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears they went on a national tour in a large country per Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources. --Porqin 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Out of that press list most are legitmatly published and distributed (not a zine or a blog, of which are are few) newspapers, many of which are distributed outside thier area. Also, any mention on allmusic is very notable considering they have standards for what they review. Furthermore, the international tour should credit thier notability alone, espically considering it was not as a supporting band.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean national tour, right? --Porqin 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhhhh... yes. Oops. Also, if it counts for anything, they have over 4000 Myspace user friends almost 30 000 views.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think anything in that huge list of press articles comes from a reliable source (even the NJ.com article comes from a blog and not one of the many papers that web site supports, such as the Star-Ledger), and I don't consider a dozen shows in small, non-notable clubs- all in the Eastern Time Zone- with anoter non-notable band as a "national tour". In addition, the article doesn't even assert the notability that their own web site does, and of the first 30 hits from Parssssel's (BTW, nice to see you again) search, more than half are unrelated to the band. -- Kicking222 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's not a national tour, it's a regional tour. --MECU≈talk 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and her little dog too. Last.fm test: 619 listeners. That's getting some attention -- I know interesting artists who have a fraction of that -- but it doesn't demonstrate wide notability yet. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lismore is a well established band that deserves a page on an encyclopedia. Besides, even though they have 619 listeners on Last.fm, it might be possible that the target market of the website does not include people that enjoy that specific genre considering electronic music has never really gotten a high level of interest on last.fm, for the exception of a few very popular bands. In addition, take Wynton Marsalis for an example, his quartet only has 759 listeners on last.fm and yet he holds a page on this encyclopedia site. I hope this helps. --angers 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted, hoax. --Cyde↔Weys 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowlton Estate[edit]

More of the Eyre/Heller hoax stuff, perpetrated by the same people, with zero references and zero Google hits for '"Knowlton Estate" Heller'. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete likely hoax, as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above unless verification somehow emerges. --W.marsh 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Made up in school one day Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:V.--Isotope23 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - utterly nonnotable, and most likely a hoax. Salt the earth.--Toffile 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPBA[edit]

Non-notable league of the "sport" pool basketball. Not backed up by any reliable sources, etc... Delete as such. Wickethewok 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even though the lack of notability was already present, I Googled "xtreme pool basketball association". Unsurprisingly, it comes up with 1 hit, and that hit is Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources are present or can be found to establish any notability or that this is just something more than what a couple guys made up in the backyard one summer. DrunkenSmurf 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Karnesky 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor Who Ratings Guide[edit]

Non-notable fansite. Already mentioned and described under the Fan sites section of Doctor Who, I don't see how this needs an article of its own Lurker say/said 16:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, with over 6000 reviews by several thousand authors? Hmmm. Nope, don't see it. proteus71. 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The amount of content on a site should not be seen as a measure of notability, which refers to how much notice the rest of the world takes of something Lurker say/said 16:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This fansite doesn't need its own article, especially if it's mentioned somewhere else. In addition, the article is self-admitted vanity, with an internal link to proteus71's user page. -- Kicking222 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved with the site since 1999! Hello! Look at the merits of the argument before jumping to conclusions! The Doctor Who Web Guide ranks it as the 11th most popular site amongst DW fans and earned a 'Web Guide Gold' honor. As far as daily web hits go, we could ask Robert Smith? for some data. Any site where several thousand collaborators contribute to create an original work is noteworthy in itself. To say it's just a "fan" site would be comparing it to a site where at most 30 people have contributed. Also, there is no more comprehensive DW review site on the Internet. Is this not above and beyond the normal 'fan site'? As for notability: Mack Swain is not a name that most people recognize, yet there's his WP site. The same argument can be made for articles on Hugh Henry Brackenridge, geodesic, or even pho. So, I don't see your point. proteus71, 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: WP:VAIN, I've removed the links to my WP user account. proteus71, 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN. --Porqin 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UT
    • WP:VAIN no longer applies. WP:NN has been refuted. proteus71, 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:VAIN may no longer apply, but WP:NN, and WP:WEB still do. Regarding the gold award you speek of, I can only find the doctor who web guide, which isn't a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. These things still make it not notable, and a violation of WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:WEB — my bad. Sorry, I hadn't run across that one before. Go ahead and delete it. proteus71, 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a short excerpt from WP:VAIN: Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.
    Therefore, just because you removed a wikilink from the articles page to your userpage, doesn't automatically disqualify it as vanity. --Porqin 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if this page were to go away and be replaced by an exact duplicate by someone other than me, who does't know me, has never been contacted by me, etc., etc., would you apply WP:VAIN to it? proteus71, 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that this article didn't violate WP:WEB and WP:NN, and a random person recreated this article following a WP:NPOV, the article wouldn't violate WP:VAIN and would remain. But that isn't the case. --Porqin 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete An article repost containing the same information/title is grounds for speedy. --Porqin 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: proteus71, if you can show that this website is worthwhile to have an article, I would say keep it, however, I can not find any other websites which are not related to Doctor Who that mention this one. As for your suggestion that the Outpost Gallifrey article also be deleted, you are missing what makes Outpost Gallifrey notable. Outpost Gallifrey has been mentioned in independent sources that are not centered on Doctor Who. Show us where the Doctor Who Ratings Guide has been mentioned outside of Whovian fandom, and it may be kept. Until then, I won't speak for or against deletion.

    As an aside, I like Doctor Who, and love the 9th Doctor. - LA @ 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lady Aleena. The fact is from what the article shows right now: it's not notable. I definately know that the Guide has thousands of reviews since I myself have posted nearly every review link to the corresponding episode, audio or book.. And that one stage-play...
Though, a few or couple I've noticed are the same as posted on Outpost Gallifrey's review section (which is pretty understandable as to why however: the reviewers submitted to both fan-sites). All in all, it still lacks notability as forementioned above and rather randomly, I say, geodesic is notable as your other examples..
Delete. DrWho42 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. --Brian Olsen 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing here which isn't already (more or less) stated in the description given in the External Links section of Doctor Who. It's a site, it has lots of reviews. That's basically it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I use the website, but I don't think it meets WP:WEB. It could certainly fit in a "list of Doctor Who fan websites" overview as part of a larger article, because it provides a unique service. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Moses Robotson[edit]

Do not delete. Publication is here http://www.lulu.com/content/126736

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also very few google hits. --Porqin 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be self-published. I can't find any of the "publications" on Amazon. Google doesn't show much either: just Wikipedia and one page on YouTube. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per WP:NN, WP:BIO, and maybe WP:VAIN. Does not deserve article space. Thε Halo Θ 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, high schools are notable. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bay School of San Francisco[edit]

Another high school page. WP is not a directory! Delete --Neigel von Teighen 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They don't make any claims to being notable, other than existing. Without a school article that can or will be developed, or maintain some sense of notability, it shouldn't be kept. Also, around 1/2 of the text on the page is a quote from the Schools link. --Porqin 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NN. Thε Halo Θ 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Delete, article provides no discernable notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above or merge to Presidio of San Francisco. WP:SCHOOL failed, and the creation of a wikiproject does not confer encyclopedic value to all its subjects. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No assertion of notability? LOL, you are kidding only yourself. Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy, nor a guideline, it is an essay. This school is utilizing "one of the largest and most historic buildings on the Presidio's Main Post." [39] You know, the Presidio of San Francisco, a well known U.S. National Park Site which was once responsible for providing all U.S. Army facilities within the Western United States and has appeared in multiple Hollywood big-budget action films. I'm really beginning to wonder how many of you bother to read these school articles. Silensor 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your argument about the Presidio being important is irrelevant. Just because the school is in the Presidio doesn't give it encyclopedic value. It can be mentioned in the Presidio's article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another school, regardless of its location. The Presidio is an important place that naturally belongs in an encyclopedia; that does not mean that a school that happens to be located there is automatically important. Shall we also have articles on every tourist who has ever visited the Presidio, or perhaps every bird that has flown over and been caught in the background of a big-budget Hollywood action film being filmed there? — Haeleth Talk 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument is so logically challenged I don't know where to begin. Silensor 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also per Silensor. -Thesocialistesq 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep couldn't say it better than Silensor did. My comment 2 Haeleth comment: no comment necessary :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eh, yeah, I did read the article. The school is WP:NN. It was opened in 2005, and the page just goes on about what it offers. Building 35 in the school may merit its own article, but the school does not. By all means, write an article about building 35 in The Bay Scholl, put all that info in that article, but as for Bay School itself, Not Notable! As for big budget hollywood movies, WP:V please? Thε Halo Θ 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. Secondary level educational institutions and above are notable, and this school is on nationally recognized historic grounds. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep how many schools in the US are historic buildings on the federal registry? Per my search less than 20. As this is one of that rare few, it deserves to stay.  ALKIVAR™ 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Presidio of San Francisco or delete.I had to think about this for longer than the average school nomination here, this one actually has an assertion of notability. However, we don't believe in contact notability, as the spouse of a notable person is not thereby notability (and the spouse of a notable person is much more intimately connected to that person and more likely to be significant to them, than a building is to the current use of it. So the argument that being in the Presidio generates notability for the school is wrong. It does mean that we could put a sentence into the article on the Presidio about a high school being opened there. The other potential claim to notability I saw was being an "independent" school. I'm not certain what that means in California. I take it to mean that it is structurally and financially independent of the local school district - which means that the school is effectively a private company, generating spamvertisement concerns. Those concerns offset any reason for keeping it generated by being independent. GRBerry 01:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Presidio. The building is notable, but that does not confer notability onto the school, anymore that companies with office space in Canary Wharf are automatically notable. -- GWO
  • Obvious Keep. This school is more obviously noteworthy than many others. Frankly, I almost can't believe this was seriously nominated.--Nicodemus75 08:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per silensor this school is notable and verifiable Yuckfoo 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid keep — This particular Secondary School meets my criteria for notability. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per RJH. A must keep! Capit 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per everyone else in the WP:SCHOOL flood above. A school should NEVER be deleted from the encyclopedia. --ForbiddenWord 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "flood" and This page -- Librarianofages 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, almost all schools that exist are notable. bbx 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DP --Usgnus 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most everyone else. It is somewhat suprising to see such a notable school nominated for deletion. Bahn Mi 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A nomination of a high school article by an experienced user smacks of disruption to make a point. Piccadilly 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High schools are notable. Erechtheus 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do the folks in this "flood" realize that this is a U.S. private school that has yet to graduate any students? Their website solicts financial donations. (See [40] and [41].) WP:CORP and WP:SPAM are more relevant to this discussion than WP:SCHOOL which is a failed policy. GRBerry 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many new schools don't graduate students after their 2nd year of operation. Many private non-profit organizations solicit donations on their websites (CARE for example). --Usgnus 07:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxworld[edit]

non-notable (website?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins Helping Admins[edit]

Prod removed by author. Article is vainspamvertisment. Wildthing61476 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The above comment was by the article's author. Wildthing61476 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, with only contributions relating to this article / afd. --Porqin 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of your comments have any merit. You have given no valid reasons to delete thisFireBob517--FireBob517 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Violating WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM isn't enough of a reason? You're lucky the article hasn't been speedily deleted. Wildthing61476 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete, per nom and recommend that user have a good slap on the wrist. HawkerTyphoon 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing more time is given, this article can be re-written. It can be blanked temporarily if required. --Yup 1 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This user has 4 edits to the Wikipedia, all include relationship to this article. --Porqin 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing in the article that violates anything.. It's against rules to tell about a free help site and what they offer people? Have any of you actually browsed through some of the bogus listings on wiki?--FireBob517 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there are "bogus" listings, please feel free to start AFD proceedings on them. Now, about this site, it not only fails WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM but also fails WP:WEB. Should hitting the trifecta be a valid reason for a speedy? Dipics 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB --Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertising. Feel free to post other "bogus listings" for deletion. NawlinWiki 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article as it is stands now eligible to be removed from the Deletion queue? -Jedifans 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Vacations[edit]

Blattant ad for vacations with site link: WP:SPAM. Mattisse 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:SPAM --Porqin 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's WP:SPAM - if only we could put redirects on SPAM to their competitors ... WilyD 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of deleted content and non-notable website. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FuckFrance.com[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic article about a non-notable website. Article also contains POV Lurker say/said 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Earlier today this was speedied. --Porqin 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and lock it out from being recreated for a while. Sometimes you just have to make your point with a ten pound sledge. WilyD 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't realise it was a repost otherwise I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. Definitely a speedy delete Lurker say/said 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. Article has previously been speedily deleted, on 24 July. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Vale CC[edit]

Non notable cricket club. Mattisse 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NN Lea Vale Cricket Club is an amateur cricket side based in Stourbridge, Worcestershire. --Porqin 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khullar Engineers India[edit]

Author has removed deletion tag NUMEROUS times and has been warned. Article was deleted earlier today, and reposted. Wildthing61476 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Reposting of same material. --Porqin 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Nothing has been deleted at this page title before. In the absence of prior AfD for this corporate spam, and since companies don't come under CSD A7, I propose we just kill this the official way. Kimchi.sg 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since there has been no evidence this page was deleted earlier today, delete it is. --Porqin 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. --MECU≈talk 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Vanity and corporate spam HawkerTyphoon 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrecourt Castle[edit]

Possible hoax - see WP:ANI#A multitude of hoaxes for background. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely weak keep. Eyrecourt Castle does exist, though the Eyre family hoax stuff needs to be removed and verifiable references included. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge into Eyrecourt- village plus castle could be a reasonable small article some day. (There is a bit more verifiable info about the castle around - when I have time I'll do something about it.)--HJMG 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've done a rewrite. --HJMG 13:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate topic. Certainly should not be merged. Piccadilly 22:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garlique[edit]

Page reads like an advertisement; created by a sockpuppet; briefly considered for speedy deletion, reversed for improvement, no substantial changes since ThuranX 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. HawkerTyphoon 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If it's true that Larry King "heavily" promotes it, then it seems possible that third-party sources could turn up. But they haven't yet, and the article has been around a while. --Allen 19:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just an advertisement, probably not much more to be added. Mikeeilbacher 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Haner[edit]

Not-quite-notable enough chap. Either expand the article and the pages linked to it, or delete it. Ideally I'd like to keep, but it's not adding anything to WP at all. HawkerTyphoon 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Might be noteable since he has some albums, but it definately needs expansion and more sources to keep. --MECU≈talk 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Seems like mainly a session musician who had some memorable gigs, but I bet those solo albums don't meet WP:BAND. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expectation fulfillment theory of dreams[edit]

A few hits on Google for the book. That's it. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Mattisse 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. HawkerTyphoon 17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Griffin[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:V. Only his own books listed as references. His Expectation fulfillment theory of dreams was nominated also (see above). Mattisse 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. HawkerTyphoon 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Gender[edit]

occult cruft. The concept is non-notable except in the context of a single book, the Kybalion. A Google search for "Mental Gender"+Hermeticism yields only 201 Ghits, many if not most of which are on WP or WP-derived sites. -999 (Talk) 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Perhaps some content could be merged to Kybalion. -999 (Talk) 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and redirect. Merge whatever can be, delete the rest. SynergeticMaggot 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 999 has a habit of trying to cause problems in the realm of those who don't agree with him fully. He is also nominating Hermeticism and other thought systems for deletion because of Original Research, despite 31 citations and 12 sources. The article can be expanded and should stand on its own.KV(Talk) 18:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Furthermore, I would like to note that Mental Gender is not equivalent to Kybalion, but rather is one of the many things covered within it. It does exist outside the book, and to relegate it simply to that article is foolhardy. The article is 5.4 kB which is more than enough to warrant its maintainance as a separate article.KV(Talk) 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge, and redirect per SynergeticMaggot. —Hanuman Das 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If "Mental Gender" is one of the many things covered within Kybalion, it can be one of the many things covered within the Kybalion article. Byrgenwulf 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If removed Original Research, it may fit into Kybalion page. `'mikka (t) 05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merging anything worth keeping into Kybalion. This seems to be an idea from one book. --John Nagle 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richardcavell 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voon[edit]

Wikipedia is not for drinks made up one day last month. The only reference is to a vanity page with nonsense text. Derek Balsam 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself claims that Voon was invented in June 2006. The only references it cites are vanity web pages such as the obviously bogus [43] which was registered on 21 July 2006. Perhaps Voon is well-known to an Aussie: some of the commenters above claim this, but their claims don't match the article. The article specifically claims that someone (evidently the author) invented the drink at a party last month. As the article stands, it is original research, vanity, made up one day, and non-notable. Derek Balsam 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author might claim he invented it, but I assume he is a shameless liar. He most certainly did not. I know plenty of people who have imbibed voon over the years. Dzielezna 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please cite some reliable sources documenting the use/popularity of "Voon"? Simply claiming to know people who have had this drink is not enough, you need reliable sources. Wickethewok 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of geographically disparate Australians have already stated they know of Voon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes%2C_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_culture Dzielezna 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors claiming they have had this beverage is not a reliable source of information. Please cite some examples that fit with the description at WP:RS. Wickethewok 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The google test [44] reveals no usage of the word "voon" as an alcoholic beverage. Google turns up results for the surname "Voon", for the Dutch word "voon", for an unrelated slang term in the Urban Dictionary, etc.. A google search for "voon australia", "voon drink", and "voon alcohol" are similarly fruitless. Note that I'm not claiming "voon" does not exist. I have no idea if it does or doesn't. What I'm saying is, as a neutral reader of Wikipedia with no prior knowledge of any "voon", I would have to assume from an NPOV that the article as written was a bogus, vanity article. The reason I nominated the article for deletion is that there is no evidence given in the article that it does exist, and no independent evidence of any kind anywhere, including google, that it really exists.Derek Balsam 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The google test, whilst one metric of a subject's notability, is not in and of itself a reliable test of anything other than google's ability to index the web. How many web pages does something need in order to be verifiable? Voon is falsifiable, in the sense that you can mix it yourself and compare your experience with the subject matter of the article; it is also obviously not merely something 'made up in school one day', as the number of people posting here would tend to indicate. Perhaps the article needs work to reflect the considerable exposure that those voting here have to this beverage, but I would suggest that deleting this article due to the non-notability of its subject is akin to slicing off your nose because googling 'derek balsam's nose' would spite your face. -Sidless 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You misunderstand - it's not notability that's at issue here. It's that the article constitutes clear original research and verifiability problems. Simply find good sources and rewrite the article and the debate will be finished with the article staying. Remember that Wikipedia is not about facts, it's about verifiable information. If there are no sources, and if it is impossible to find sources to document its existence, then this article should go. It can be easily rewritten once it becomes notable enough to be written about in an alcoholic beverages magazine or documented in a news program. But it must first be documented. Additionally, and this has nothing to do with AFD in my opinion but more with cleanup, there are some NPOV problems. Statements like, "tastes better than the sum of its parts", and introduced to a "skeptical world" have no place in an encylopedia. I'll remove those now as part of cleanup, but it still doesn't pass the verifiability test. 129.61.46.16 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Thanks. I am endeavouring to find sources as we speak. --Sidless 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) To clarify this decision, there is evidence that this article may be a copyvio, and also of somewhat dubious quality, which somewhat compounded one another. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy[edit]

This is total parody or hoax and does not deserve to hang around on a prod. Have a read! Mattisse 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:OR in ways I never knew to be possible. WilyD 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I'm so confused. WilyD 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but imagine how much time the author must have spent writing this... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Keep I'll give Rossami and Aquilina (and others) a chance to improve the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded it, so that's an obvious delete vote from me. -RaCha'ar 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Weak Keep if yall really think you can make it NPOV, please do. -RaCha'ar 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all above. Nuttah68 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant OR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe I'm voting keep ... but this is no hoax or parody. The Nobel Prize winning (see Karl von Frisch) dance language hypothesis is one of the classic examples given in animal cognitive science and the self-organisation of communal behaviours - see the summary article from Nature here. More than that, it was indeed a highly controversial hypothesis, after failures in initial experiments - this book [45], supported by the American Journal of Psychology, summarises the arguments, and other papers from J.Insect Behaviour [46] flesh out details. (The latest work in Nature supports the hypothesis - [47])

    IANA-animal behaviour scientist - I'm a linguist who happened by AfD - but half an hour's research and the little background I (by chance already knew) has shown this is a distinctly notable topic. Yes, the current article is awful and unwikified, but given time and the attention from those more qualified than I could make this into a Featured Article. I'll start work on improving it over the next few days if it is to be spared from the sword of AfD. Aquilina 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I suggest you copy & paste (userfy) the article and use the material to update Bee learning and communication, which could use some attention as well. hateless 00:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest not copying the text of the article, because it is a word-for-word copyright violation of a message published to a discussion forum in February 2006. Uncle G 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then one can copy to a text or Word file and save it on locally on your computer. hateless 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as unreferenced original research. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice (as the present version). Concur with Aquilina in a sense; if it's rewritten, to add sources, change to Strong Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename (the use of quotes and parens are non-standard) and mark for clean-up. This controversy is very real and well-documented among bee-researchers. See, for example, the extensive discussion and the multitude of articles referenced in the BEE-L archives on this topic. While I believe the presentation of facts in this article are one-sided and do not reflect the current scientific consensus of bee researchers, none of the facts presented in the page qualify as original research because they have been previously published in at least one peer-reviewed journal. In fact as articles go, this is already better referenced than most Wikipedia pages. The author several times cited texts and articles relevant to this controversy. The editorial comments in the page should be edited out but that's a clean-up problem, not a deletion problem.
    It is not a copyright violation because the person who posted it is the same person who made the post in the discussion list. Authors have free rights to rerelease their own writings into GFDL. The forum where she first posted this message is not independently copyrighted, leaving her as the author with an unencumbered right to republish.
    This page could be merged but this level of detail would unbalance the bee learning and communication article as it's currently structured. Rossami (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assertion that this is not a copyright violation because it is the same person is not built on any solid foundation. We don't have a statement from either person even claiming that they are the same, let alone confirmation of that. The two names (the discussion forum poster's and the Wikipedia editor's) are not even identical. Your user name is as close to the original author's name as the original editor's name is. Uncle G 01:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I should have laid out my evidence more clearly. 1) The user's chosen name (Rosinbio) is identical with the email account prefix which was used to make that particular post to the discussion forum. 2) The user's chosen name the same as the email prefix commonly used by Ruth Rosin on BEE-L discussions and other bee-research related forums (where a person with the same signature has made very similar arguments, presented similar evidence and uses the same tone and style of language). 3) This same text was largely cut-and-pasted into Talk:Bee learning and communication but with a header and some minor changes which are again consistent with this person's observed pattern of edits when reusing material across other discussion fora. I agree that it would be helpful if the user would return and explicitly confirm her identity and the rerelease of this content under GFDL and have asked her to do so but in the meantime, I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong that this is more likely to be the same person than not. Rossami (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omgcomix[edit]

Non notable website. Original author is apparently one of the authors of the web comic. Fails WP:WEB. Author removed Prod. My vote would be Delete Dipics 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah bro i removed the Prod because it said "remove this if you don't think this is right" or something to that effect. but yeah anyway I hope this doesn't get deleted because it was fun to write, doesn't hurt anyone, and personally I think WB:WEB's criteria for notability are bogus and over-exclusive. Philmcl 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't matter what you think of WP:WEB's criteria. But to change it so you can get your comic in...). You placed this to promote your comic, right (to put it another way, you at least hoped that by placing this in Wikipedia, you'd get more people looking at your comic)? But this is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to promote things, nor is it a web directory. If you really need an article Comixpedia already has an article on your comic. --ColourBurst 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMGDelete, doesn't meet our content policies, begining with WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 05:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since no one's stated they actually want to delete the article. Adding merge notice there per this discussion. And please don't simply vote for smerge without actually stating which parts you'd like to get merged, it's just confusing. - Bobet 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkTanks (game)[edit]

A garage game from Garage Games. 173 unique ghits, nothing on gnews, no sources (other than freewebs), no indication of player numbers, the named forum has few enough members that the entire list can be seen online without punishing your browser. No evidence of significance. Possible merge to Garage Games? Just zis Guy you know? 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD-A7 speedy delete. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert John Something Pedler[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. -Nv8200p talk 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, so tagged, no assertion of notability, largely nonsense. NawlinWiki 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curbsy[edit]

Nonnotable invented sport; author removed speedy tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE_massacres[edit]

Per Wikipedia policy, one cannot create a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article - Ref: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. The article Notable Attacks by the LTTE already covers these incidents. Secondly this article is very POV and uses non neutral sources for citation.--Realstarslayer 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. It is good to keep this type of articles. It doesn't take the balance away from wikipedia but strenthens it.
  • keep. What the guys who want to delete this page says is irrelevent. The USA is spenidng a vast amount of money on counter-terrorism. We must help the government in eliminating terrorism. sehger 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not part of the US government nor any government for that matter, it strives to be an informative and factual online encylopedia.--Realstarslayer 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This is a good piece of work. There are more to add to this page. Just keep it, what is wrong with having a page of facts? LTTE is a terrorist organisation according to the USA, UK, Canada and EU as well as India. LTTE do commit massacres, just keep it 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary article and POV fork. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. It might be worth then setting up a redirect, both to discourage recreation and as a plausible search term. — Haeleth Talk 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. POV fork. InvictaHOG 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Above - Richfife 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - for future reference, please list AfD nominations at the bottom of the day's list. BigHaz 23:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. The page already has a MERGE tag, so if someone feels there is a NPOV-verifiable fact to be preserved, feel free to insert it into the more comprehensive and less POV merge target page. No reason to have a POVish forked subset of one page in another location. DMacks 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: there are numerous keep 'votes' here that are from very new accounts and/or are not grounded in Wikipedia policy, but there are also enough coherent arguments for keep that the slight majority for deletion is too small to justify outright deletion. Hence, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE[edit]

Per Wikipedia policy, one cannot create a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article - Ref: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. The article Notable Attacks by the LTTE already covers these incidents.--Realstarslayer 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are 2 separate subjects treated here and these pages have different content and topics. Expansion of these articles will be in two different areas , terrorist acts and notable attacks(all significant attacks including non-terrorist acts)Ruchiraw 10:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 100 attacks listed here , not mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia including Notable attacks by the LTTERuchiraw 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UNHCR website referenced for many of the supposed attacks is simply a link to a litany of accusation made by the the SL government to the UN. If someone was trying to legitimize the source by saying its from UNHCR .. thats a joke. The additions user Ruchiraw has made are clearly NPOV. Repeatedly, "LTTE Terrorists" is used. In many of these circumstance it has never been proven that the LTTE had comitted these incidents.
Disprove these accusations. Terrorists are those kill unarmed civilians. Ruchiraw 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add this even though the point of the deletion is not for factual reasons; I read that UNHCR page and it seems the poster above is correct, Ruchiraw what you claim to be UNHCR statments on these attacks are taken from a letter sent to the UNHCR by the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the Centre for Human Rights, i.e. these are just the claims of one party to the conflict, the GoSL, and not any sort of endorsment by the UNHCR that these claims are factual nor can they be considered to be NPOV.
With a view to giving a broader perspective of LTTE involvement in persistent and gross violations of the human rights of the different religious and ethnic groups in Sri Lanka, the Government is pleased to annex hereto a copy of letter No. UN/HRTS/1/23 Vol. XVI of 9 August 1994, sent by the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the Centre for Human Rights in pursuance of Commission resolution 1994/46 and General Assembly resolution 48/122."
Here 'the Government' refers to the GoSL. Furthermore having read that page it now also brings up questions about copyright, since all your points are basicly copied from that table of attacks presented in the GoSL letter.--Realstarslayer 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Realstarslayer, this article is for public dissemination. Show me what you claim is copyright violations and whose copyright I am violating.Please read public domain particularly works ineligible for copyright protection. These are information in the public domain.
Are you saying the UN put a list of lies on its web site. This is a letter from a legal democratic government to the UN. Do you have proof these are lies. Please let the UN know and they may take it off their website. Ruchiraw 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into the details of the items listed here, we can discuss the facts on the 'notable attacks' page if this is settled. The point of this delete request is that this article is redundant, as for copyright you are probably correct if that is public domain then so be it, that was not my main point for requesting a delete anyway. As for the items themselves, as a party to the conflict, we cannot accept the GoSL’s statements as fact any more nor any less than we can accept statements from the LTTE without proof from non-interested third parties. Thus you are being quite disingenuous by trying to pass off the list of attacks as something endorsed and accepted by the UNHCR, when it was just a letter sent to them by the GoSL. So no one is accusing the UNHCR of posting lies, since it is clearly stated that they are only posting a copy of a letter sent to them, this should not be passed off as something that it is not.--Realstarslayer 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must have some evidence proving that these terrorist attacks did not happen. If it is not the responsibility of Sri Lanka to document terrorism in Sri Lanka , whose responsibility is it. They happened , you just dont want to admit it. Search BBC or Reuters and you will see these reported in the news. Ruchiraw 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruchiraw, no one is claiming these did not happen, I am pretty sure most of these incidents did occur, however the question is who commited them and we cannot rely on the opinion of the opposing side of the conflict as being a neutral and credible source. Anyhow this is the last I will discuss this matter here, we can continue this discussion on the proper page. This discussion is to consider the deletion of this page due to redundancy not due to its factual basis.--Realstarslayer 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not redundant , there is already over a hundred terrorist attacks on this page , not listed in Notable Attacks by the LTTE.This is for the period 1980-1994. There are hundreds more to be added from 1994 - 2006 which do not exist in Notable Attacks by the LTTE. There is no question of redundancy here. Both articles cover different areas. LTTE terrorist attacks number in several hundred and military attacks in thousands.Its not practical to combine different types of incidents to form supermassive pages containng thousands of incidents. How do you propose to maintain the readability of pages with thousands of incidents. People will go mad trying to read it. Keep terrorist and military attacks separate , then there is no redundancy. The Notable Attacks by the LTTEhighlights the top 100 or so incidents out of these thousands of incident also so its useful. Let the Ruchiraw 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page only contains information about terrorist attacks by LTTE. It aims to list all terorist incidents(numbering several hundreds) including minor ones. Already contains dozens of incidents not listed in Notable Attacks by the LTTE because they are not "Notable attacks" but minor terrorist ones. Source is the UNHCR website. Merging several hundred minor terrorist attacks into Notable Attacks by the LTTE would make that page not meaningful considering its title and purpose. It is not a spin off from Notable Attacks by the LTTE , it is factual and NPOV and is addresses a different topic, purpose and facts than Notable Attacks by the LTTERuchiraw 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Clean-up Page does not offer adequate context for those unfamiliar with the topic. LTTE is not an acronym with a meaning known to all. Because of this, I'm not able to form an adequate judgement about whether the page should be kept. GRBerry 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with Notable attacks by the LTTERaveenS 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of poorly referenced accusations pointing to SL Government propaganda at the UN. Clearly its breaking every rule in the book. Its not even close to NPOV. There is no proof that the LTTE committed these actions (except for example the Rajiv Gandhi assassination. If it can't be proven.. then it must be stated as Accusation. The fact is its not. Trincomanb 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to take away the right of a government to protest human rights violations against civilians.These incidents happened or they wouldnt be publised on a UN site. Perhaps you think the UN has a hidden agenda. Ruchiraw 03:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The racist Sri Lankan Tamil members of wikipedia are going into fits over this as can be seen above. The article has a very good source. Trying to white wash it by putting it under "notable attacks" of the LTTE is laughable.
I think some of you are missing the point, the discussion is not whether items listed here are factual or not, it is just to determine whether it makes sense to have three different pages to cover the same thing. The discussion as to what is factual or not should occur on the main notable attacks page. And to the unsigned poster above, I'm sure everyone will take heed of your advice when you make blanket statements about other wikipedians.--Realstarslayer 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not practical to combine different types of incidents to form supermassive pages containng thousands of incidents. LTTE terrorist attacks number in several hundred and military attacks in thousands. How do you propose to maintain the readability of pages with thousands of incidents. People will go mad trying to read it. Ruchiraw 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the point is that while the Notable attacks by the LTTE article focuses mostly on the military attacks by the LTTE, the Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE page focuses more on the attacks carried out against civilians. In any case it contains a lot of information that is not included in the notable attacks page which I think is worth preserving.
    It could be argued that both pages be merged with each other / with the LTTE page, but that will make it unwieldy and quite hard to navigate.
    I also don't think it can be labeled POV since most information is from the UNHCR website and from BBC, CNN etc. Besides POV is not a normal reason for nomination for deletion. --snowolfd4 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi snowolfd4 my issue with this page is that it is a division of effort and redundant if some of these items are not covered on the 'notable attacks' page then we should discuss it there and add those that are deemed worthwhile. As for the actual items on this page please see the comments above, this is not a posting by the UNHCR, they have merely posted a letter sent to them by the GoSL, so certainly all these 'hundreds of attacks' cannot be verified by independant sources.--Realstarslayer 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are citations from at several different sources such as CNN, BBC, GOSL, Amnesty, UTHR. Perhaps you can explain how all of them are partisan. Ruchiraw 11:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both articles are too long already. If they merged and then expanded it may not be stylistically readable according to article size guideline of Wikipedia , specifically the following sentence of that guideline
However, there are still good stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues, so article size is usually a consideration, though no longer a binding rule as it once was. NumeroUno 10:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any reason to delete or merge this page with any other page.SwissMissy 11:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it may be best to have just one article List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, with the sections Attacks on civilian targets and Attacks on military targets, with each divided into sections listing attacks proved to have been by the LTTE and attacks only attributed to the LTTE with no conclusive proof. This will avoid issues with verifiability, and also the problem that if the word "terrorist" is included in the title the article will not be NPOV. -- Ponnampalam 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LTTE has committed more terrorist attacks than any other group in the world. If we try to mix up a page detailing its terrorist attacks with other attacks , it will become hundreds of pages long. See article sizeRuchiraw 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have citation for the above statement ("LTTE has committed more terrorist attacks than any other group in the world") or is this just made up ? Well if we were to document instances of torture,killings, abductions etc of Tamil civillians by the SL Governments and its proxies then it will be hundreds of thousands of pages. Trincomanb 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know which suicide bombings are not classified as terrorist. LTTE is a pioneer in the terrorist field and it is generally acknowledged it has carried out several hundred terrorist attacks, more than any other terrorist group. Ruchiraw 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over half of ALL the suicide bombings in the world have been carried out by LTTE (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=470). Over 200 incidents to describe in thsi page alone plus hundreds of attacks on civilians. Ruchiraw 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citation that you mention and what you boastfully stated earlier is not exactly the same. Not all suicide bombings are considered terrorism. Besides terrorism has a disputed definition. You are attempting to spice your facts and pushing it with intentionally vague referencing. This is bad academic practise to say the least. I have also noticed a number of non-participating users coming here to vote to keep this page. How interesting!! Trincomanb 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete This page contains original info which is infact a document sent by the SL Government to UNHCR. Its propaganda rubbish. Everyhting else is covered elsewhere. So this page is redundant, therefore it should be deleted Johnathan1156 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
These incidents happened. There are many citations from Amnesty International, MPIT Terrorist database, BBC , etc:-.Please read through carefully. Suggect you add references as well instead of trying to hide evidence of terrorist attacks. Ruchiraw 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the SL Government says so doesn't mean it happened. The credibility of this document is minimal if its coming from the SL Government (government of a failed state, with a dysfunctional democracy, abhorent human rights record etc. etc..) If there is citation from Amnesty for a particular incident then it has weight.. otherwise it doesn't mean that it didn't happen but it is just that the source is not credible. If the SL government's fairy tales are to be believed, then we might as well add items from LTTE peace secretariat as well. Trincomanb 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka has a democratically elected government which is more than can be said for the LTTE which relies on violence to remain in power, is banned in over thirty countries and whose leader is wanted by Interpol for terrorism[48]. You cant equate the two. You are missing my point , there are many citations from Amnesty International, BBC, MIPT terrorist database as well. Have you read the article being discussedRuchiraw 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka has the second highest number of disappearances after Iraq.. this includes a lot of Sinhalese missing since the JVP insurrection which some have comfortably forgotten. Democracy for who, everyone or just Sinhala Budhists ? The fact of the matter is that world has threatened to impose sanctions on both parties and very soon send some of those that give you orders to the criminal court for war crimes. LTTE's proxy the TNA is by far the most popular party in the North-East. Why would you want to participate in flawed, decaying democracy such as Sri Lanka ? There maybe many citations of events that occured, but you are using that to sneak in govt. fairy tales as well, thinking the rest of us dim enough not to notice it. Reputable sources are careful not point the finger without proof and most of the incidents have not been proven to be comitted by the LTTE. Wikipedia is not a place to speculate. If you want to speculate become an astrologer. Trincomanb 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time I am reminding you that there are plenty of citations from BBC, Amnesty International and MIPT terrorist database. Which members of the Sri Lankan government are wanted by Interpol. I believe Japan is also contemplating banning the LTTE. The US has also promised substantial military help to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is a world recognised government. The governments of 1.5 billion people have benned LTTE as a terrorsit group. Where is the proof Al Quaeda committed teh Twin Tower bombigs. Perhaps you deny that as well. Sri Lanka is a vibrant democracy. As I mention again it is the responsibility of the government to find out who is massacring its civilians. Ruchiraw 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ulflarsen As I have pointed out several times there are Takes away the meaning of the word "Notable attacks" hundreds of minor terrorist attacks on this page whcih cannot be integrated into Notable attacks by the LTTE. Notable attacks by the LTTE covers only signicant LTTE military and terrorist attacks at the moment. Look at article size guideline of Wikipedia. . There is no point to include hundreds of minor terrorist attacks and thousands of minor military attacks into this page in the name of stopping forks.Ruchiraw 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruchiraw, I think you stated it quite well: There is no point to include hundreds of minor terrorist attacks and thousands of minor military attacks into this page. This is why I started the deletion request for this page, the notable attacks page is more than enough to cover the main attacks and we can discuss any others that you feel should be included and do so when a consensus is reached, otherwise we are going to have a myriad of pages for all sorts of things. Should we start a page for all GoSL human rights violations? The Human Rights Commission of SL just recently decided to abandoned 2000 cases because of pressure from the president, in their own words; further investigation would require the government to pay out compensation [49]? So should we start a page and list each one of those 2,000 cases? And that is 2,000 out of more than 16,000 cases still pending? So should we have an entry for each one of those 16,000 cases?--Realstarslayer 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I'm not sure you even read the section about POV forks, otherwise you would not be arguing against the deletion of this page, let me just quote it here:
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
--Realstarslayer 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this article appears informative and has multiple citationsMoonwalkerUnitOne 11:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The votes should be checked to find out if they are sockpuppets. Ulflarsen 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the vote should be checked for sockpuppets. Some users seem really desperate to bend all the rules. Trincomanb 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I too find it astounding that so many new 'faces' have appeared here to vote in favour of keeping a blatant POVfork, users who have never been seen discussing or contributing to any related articles.--Realstarslayer 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and relevant information. If there is an article on "State terrorism" of Sri Lanka then there should be no problem of having a list of terrorist attacks carried out by the LTTE.
  • Keep. This Artical have more information ----RavenS 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one artical should be deleated it should be the other one.[Notable_attacks_by_the_LTTE] not this. This has more info than that.

we have tried to incorporate the below list to the main artical of LTTE. But the users of that page dont allow any NPOV on that page and our contributions got reverted all the time. Below is the list of attacks we tried to incorporated but they kept deleating them and finally moved in to the descussion page. Then they compleately took off that part from the main LTTE page and opened up a new page to avoid readers to see these attacks. I dont think that this page should be deleted and I vote to keep it. Plus all these attacks are listed as attacks carried out by the LTTE. Why cant we give that information to the readers?? Arent Wikipedia based on facts?----RavenS 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that this article is a POVFork and so should be deleted, that is all (BTW you should read the discussion before going back to that 'its listed by the UNHCR' stuff, since it has been clearly shown that it was nothing more than a letter sent to the UNHCR by the GoSL) .--Realstarslayer 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than a letter sent to the UNHCR?? you are confusing me here! Are you saying that the UNHCR is stupid that they publishes every letter they receive on their web site??--RavenS 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you whining about? Then the "State Terrorism of Sri Lanka" is also POV and should be deleted. -by anonymous 58.164.160.91.
It is listed In MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Basethat LTTE is a terrorist Group and its listed that the attacks below was carried out by the LTTE in UNHCHR UNHCHR.So I dont see any problem in listing these as "notable attacks" by LTTE.As a matter of fact we are all trying to give the true picture to the world not mislead them.----RavenS 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
RavenS, I'm really not sure what you are going on about, I did not make any comment as to the collective intelligence of the UNHCR. Some interested parties were trying to pass off that list as having been compiled by the UNHCR when it wasn't. It is only a letter sent to the UNHCR by the GoSL and thus not a valid citation for these attacks, as they are one of the parties to the ethnic conflict and so cannot be considered as an independent non interested third party. Those are just the facts no matter how much you may wish it otherwise. --Realstarslayer 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. I suggest merging with State terrorism in Sri Lanka under the title Notable human rights violations in Sri Lanka, in the process cleaning up (and out) a lot. And we would have to have several impartial users constantly watch the page. But well, we also have to do so now with the different articles, anyway. Krankman 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krankman , this lists the terrorist attacks by the LTTE and has absolutely no connection to state terrorsim in Sri Lanka page
I think Krankman's suggestion is a very good one. Then the readers can judge for themselves who the terrorist are. This will also produce quality wiki articles where the reader is provided with NPOV info.--RavenS 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I change my opinion from delete to merge as user Krankman suggests. Ulflarsen 12:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  * 30/11/84 29 Sinhalese Villagers killed by LTTE at Kent Farm, Oddusudan
  * 30/11/84 33 Sinhalese Villagers killed by LTTE at Doller Farm
  * 01/12/84 11 Sinhalese Villagers killed by LTTE at Kokilai, Vavuniya
  * 13/12/84 27 Tamils killed by LTTE at Oddusudan
  * 19/01/85 11 civilians killed by LTTE in Yal Devi Explosion
  * 14/05/85 120 civilians killed by LTTE at the Sri Maha Bodhi, Anuradhapura
  * 14/05/85 18 civilians killed by LTTE at Wilpattu.
  * 02/06/85 13 civilians killed by LTTE in CTB bust at Morawewa.
  * 04/06/85 13 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Dewatte, Trincomalee.
  * 03/05/86 16 killed in a bomb blast in a Tri-Star Plane at Katunayake Airport by LTTE.
  * 07/05/86 14 killed in bomb explosion by LTTE - CTO Fort.
  * 25/05/86 20 Sinhalese shot dead and 20 houses set on fire Mahadiwulwewa, Trincomalee by LTTE.
  * 31/05/86 13 killed in a bomb blast at Veyangoda station.
  * 04/06/86 17 Sinhalese villagers including Bakamune Subaddalankara Thero, shot deat at Andankulam, Trincomalee by LTTE.
  * 11/06/86 22 persons killed by LTTE in tow explosions in Trincomalee.
  * 25/06/86 16 Sinhalese killed by LTTE in bomb explosion, Sittaru, Kantale.
  * 08/07/86 15 Sinhalese villagers shot dead at Monkey bridge, Trincomalee.
  * 19/07/86 12 Sinhalese shot dead at Medirigiriya,Polonnaruwa by LTTE.
  * 22/07/86 32 Sinhalese killed in mine explosion at Mamaduwa, Vavuniaya by LTTE.
  * 24/07/86 12 civilians killed in a bus-bom at Issenbessagala, Medawachchiya by LTTE.
  * 07/02/87 28 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Arantalawa, Ampara.
  * 22/03/87 26 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE at Serunewa, Horowpothana.
  * 17/04/87 96 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Trincomalee/Habarana Road.
  * 20/04/87 15 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE at Jayanthipura, Trincomalee.
  * 02/06/87 30 Buddhist monks and 4 civilians shot dead by LTTE at Arantalawa, Ampara.
  * 11/06/87 13 civilians killed in a pressure mine explosion, Veppankulam by LTTE.
  * 06/10/87 18 Sinhalese shot dead by LTTE at Batticaloa.
  * 06/10/87 27 Sinhalese villagers shot dead at Sagarapura, kuchchuveli, Trincomalee by LTTE.
  * 06/10/87 22 Sinhalese shot dead by LTTE at Talawa, Eravur.
  * 07/10/87 30 Sinhalese shot dead by LTTE at Ampara.
  * 15/10/87 14 Sinhalese passengers shot dead on Ella Kantale, Trincomalee by LTTE.
  * 16/10/87 11 Sinhalese hostages killed by LTTE at Pulmoddai, Trincomalee.
  * 09/11/87 23 civilians killed, 106 injured in a bomb explosion at Maradana, Colombo by LTTE.
  * 12/11/87 12 Tamils killed by LTTE in landmine explosion, Cheddikulam, Vavuniya.
  * 02/03/88 14 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE - Morawewa, Trincomalee.
  * 05/03/88 16 Muslims and 8 Sinhalese killed in a mine explosion, Sitturu, Kantale by LTTE.
  * 11/03/88 19 Passengers of a private bus killed, Suhadagama, Horawpothana by LTTE.
  * 14/03/88 13 villages killed at Galametiyawa, Kantalai, Trincomalee by LTTE.
  * 31/03/88 10 Muslims and 07 Tamils killed at Saindamaradu, Kalmunai by LTTE.
  * 08/04/88 14 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Horowpothana, Meegaswewa, Anuradhapura.
  * 01/05/88 12 Sinhalese, 9 Muslims and 5 Tamils wee killed by LTTE at Sittaru in landmine explosion.
  * 28/07/88 16 civilians killed by LTTE at Etawetunuwewa, Welioya.
  * 25/08/88 11 civilians killed by cutting their necks, by LTTE - Marawila, Polonnaruwa.
  * 09/10/88 44 villagers killed by LTTE at Mahakongaskada, Medavachchiya.
  * 14/11/88 28 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at paniketiyawa, Gomarankadawela.
  * 02/02/89 11 Sinhalese hacked to death, by LTTE - Bogamuyaya, Maha Oya, Ampara.
  * 11/02/89 34 Sinhalese villagers killed by LTTE at Dutuwewa, Horowpotana.
  * 27/02/89 37 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE at Borawewa, Polonnaruwa.
  * 17/08/89 18 civilians killed by LTTE in an IED explosion at Nochchikulam, Vavuniya.
  * 26/07/90 19 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Thammannaelawaka, Medawachchiya.
  * 03/08/90 103 Muslims killed and 70 wounded at Meera Jumma and Hussaina Mosques, Kathankudi, Batticaloa-by LTTE.
  * 05/08/90 17 Muslim farmers killed by LTTE at Mullayankadu, Ampara.
  * 06/08/90 33 farmers killed by LTTE at Ampara.
  * 07/08/90 30 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Bandaraduwa, Uhana, Ampara.
  * 08/08/90 26 Sinhalese killed by LTTE in a bus at Meegaswewa, Anuradhapura.
  * 11/08/90 116 Muslim killed at division 3 and 6, Eravur by LTTE.
  * 13/08/90 14 civilians killed in bus ambush, at 15th Mile Post, Pulmoddai, Welioya - by LTTE.
  * 19/09/90 23 Sinhalese killed and 11 houses burnt by LTTE at Vellanmundal, Puttalam.
  * 21/09/90 15 killed by LTTE at Pudukudiyirippu, Ampara.
  * 23/01/91 25 civilians killed by LTTE at Bogammuyaya, Maha Oya, Ampara.
  * 02/03/91 13 civilians killed Havelock Road bomb explosion that killed Ranjan Wijeratne - by LTTE.
  * 14/04/91 17 Sinhalese killed, by LTTE - Ethimalai, Monaragala.
  * 20/04/91 21 civilians hacked to death by LTTE at Niyadela.
  * 27/06/91 16 civilians killed by LTTE in two claymore explosions at Lahugala, Ampara.
  * 06/07/91 16 Muslims and 2 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Pudur, Polonnaruwa.
  * 19/09/91 13 Muslims killed by LTTE at Palliyagodella, Polonnaruwa.
  * 10/04/92 25 civilians killed in bomb explosion in Ampara - by LTTE.
  * 29/04/92 56 civilians killed by LTTE in Muslim village, Alinchipothana, Polonnaruwa.
  * 02/06/92 15 passengers killed in bust by LTTE at 209th Mile Post at Ampara.
  * 15/07/92 19 Muslim passengers killed in a bus by LTTE at Kirankulam, Batticaloa.
  * 01/09/92 22 Muslims killed in an explosion in Saindamaradu, Kalmunai- by LTTE.
  * 01/10/92 15 civilians killed by LTTE at Konwewa, Welioya.
  * 15/10/92 172 civilians killed 4 Muslim villages - Pallayagodella, Ahamedpura, Pamburana and Agbopura in Polonnaruwa-by LTTE.
  * 01/05/93 17 killed by LTTE at Armour street explosion that killed President R.Premadasa.
  * 16/03/94 17 Sinhalese killed by LTTE in Kudiramalai, Puttalam.
  * 24/11/94 55 killed by LTTE in bomb blast at Grandpass including Gamini Dissanayake.
  * 25/05/95 42 civilians killed by LTTE at Kallarawa,Trincomalee.
  * 07/08/95 22 People died in bomb blast at Torrington Square-by LTTE.
  * 21/10/95 16 villagers killed by LTTE at Mangalagama, Ampara.
  * 21/10/95 36 civilians killed by LTTE at Moneratenna, Bowatta, Polonnaruwa.
  * 21/10/95 19 villagers killed north or Padaviya, Galtalawa, Welioya - by LTTE.
  * 25/10/95 11 civilians killed by LTTE at Athimale,Kotiyagala, Monaragala.
  * 25/10/95 12 villagers killed by LTTE at Panama, Ampara.
  * 26/10/95 26 villagers killed in an attack by LTTE on 03 Kabethigollawa villagers.
  * 11/11/95 15 civilians killed in a suicide attack by LTTE at Slave Island.
  * 31/01/96 89 killed in Central Bank building bomb blast-by LTTE.
  * 24/07/96 68 people killed in a bomb attack by LTTE at Dehiwala Railway station.
  * 15/10/97 18 civilians killed at bomb blast in Galadari Hotel, Colombo-by LTTE.
  * 24/01/98 A LTTE suicide bomber had exploded 02 bombs in the vicinity of Dalanda Maligawa, Kandy.
  * 06/02/98 A LTTE Suicide bomber exploded at Air Force Road block, Slave Island, killing 03 Airmen.
  * 05/03/98 Bomb exploded near Maradana Police Station, killing 38 civilians and injuring 270 civilians.
  * 11/09/98 An explosion took place inside the Municipal commissioner’s office closer to Nallur Kovil. Mr. P Sivapalan mayor of Jaffna and 07 others killed and 15 wounded.
  * 17/07/99 A time bomb fixed to a bicycle exploded exploded near old police station, Batticaloa. 02 civilians died and 17 were wounded.
  * 29/07/99 A LTTE suicide bomber exploded himself whilst Dr. Neelam Thiruchelvam was travelling in Rosmid place junction.
  * 22/09/99 An explosion occurred in a private bus parked at the Negombo private bus stand injuring 02 civilians by LTTE.
  * 22/09/99 A bomb exploded in a People’s Transport Service bus plying from Negambo to Kuliyapitiya, injuring 09 passengers.
  * 26/09/99 A bomb exploded in a private bus near the 2nd Mile post of Badulla, Passara, Monaragala killing 01 civilian and injuring 28 others.
  * 18/12/99 An explosion suspected to be triggered off by a LTTE suicide female terrorist took place at the Town Hall, Colombo.
  * 18/12/99 A explosion at Ja-Ela bus stand where the UNP presidential Election rally was held. 12 civilians killed with Major Gen C L Algama and 45 others wounded.
  * 05/01/2000 A LTTE suicide bomber exploded near Prime Minister Office in Flower Road, Colombo killing 05 persons and injuring 24 civilians.
  * 25/04/2006 a LTTE female suicide bomber attacked the vehicle of the commander of the Sri Lankan army at army headquarters in Colombo. Several military personnel were killed and a number of people were injured.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE" Views 

   * Article
   * Discussion
   * Edit this page
   * +
   * History
   * Move
   * Watch

Personal tools 

   * RavenS
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

Navigation 

   * Main Page
   * Community Portal
   * Featured articles
   * Current events
   * Recent changes
   * Random article
   * Help
   * Contact Wikipedia
   * Donations

Search

Toolbox 

   * What links here
   * Related changes
   * Upload file
   * Special pages
   * Printable version
   * Permanent link

MediaWiki Wikimedia Foundation 

   * This page was last modified 22:47, 28 July 2006.
   * All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
     Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm[edit]

A group of no obvious significance, according to the article on its founder defunct for some years. No sources (how unusual!). Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can dig up some verifiable sources. That fact that it's defunct is irrelevant, though. Ziggurat 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V, then create as a redirect to Storm (disambiguation). GassyGuy 07:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Delete as failing WP:V. Anyway, one small (and yes, defunct) website about something doesn't really prove its relevance. Taniwha 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is well-placed in context and referred to in Zeena Schreck. i can't vouch for their verifiability but the story is easily googable: this is William_H._Kennedy mentioning them; another link here; their own website has a long essay with enough details to convince me it's not a joke. Aaronbrick 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:V per [50] (provided by brick). - FrancisTyers · 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the only WP:V verification is catholicrevolution.org above, then clearly (to me) this article fails WP:V.63.197.134.218
  • Keep, whilst the group is small, it 'is' functional and the website has changed; if only being, chopped down. If the entry is being deleted due the group not being functional, I would like to see varifiable evidance of this?

The entry is valid due to context to Zeena Schreck and her place in the history of the western left hand path occult movement. Further, as her husbands Nikolas Scherck book 'Demons of the Flesh' is proving to be a seminal work within its field and the nature of their split from Temple of Set on theological and philosophical grounds, the entry is relevent to the history and development of the western occult world.

  • Delete -- granted Zeena and Nikolas are significant footnotes to developments of the western occult world, I don't see any evidence that this organization is. It certainly warrants a paragraph or two in an article on Zeena and/or Nikolas, but given the lack of WP:V and the lack of significance of the organization itself, if there's any organization to be found 2-3 years after its creation, I vote for Delete. 207.11.78.94
  • KeepAgain can you give any evidence, that the orgaisation is not? The website has changed, and there is communication avalible, though only through postal contact-If one sends return postage, one does get a reply. However, if lack of communication through email or a small website constitutes an organisation being non-existance, then yes it should be deleated. Though if Wikipeda is a medium for information gathering, then it a valid entry. Unless one happens to have prejudice towards the Storm and the Schrecks, which would not be a neutral opinion.
  • Keep It seems to be at least as notable and verifiable as the World Intelligence Network. DrL 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArtFigures[edit]

Delete as vanity/autobiographical article. ArtFigures was created by Artfigures (talk · contribs). The artist herself may have some minor claim to notability, but this article looks more like a promotional vehicle to direct readers to the website. The article had been tagged for speedy twice, but the article creator removed the tag both times. I doubt that it meets WP:CSD criteria, so I'll bring it here. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - autobio -- Whpq 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant spam. EVula 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tagged this for speedy as advertising spam, and I still think that's what it is. AlexTiefling 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Clearly vanispam and a non-notable bio - Peripitus (Talk) 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn after serious offers of clean-up. Will tag as such.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex the Dog[edit]

Tagged as CSD-A7 and contested, but there's a sniff - just a small sniff - of notability being asserted towards the foot of the article - although no sources to say if it's true. So it comes here. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally tagged the article for CSD. If they DO pass the notability test (which I'm not sure they can), they are still not-notable enough for an article. Wildthing61476 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm personally familiar with his music - he's had several very notable collaborations in his field, and has been featured on BBC Radio 1. I'm sure I can reference this article and otherwise knock it into shape given a few days. Aquilina 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - wasn't it me who tagged it for CSD first :-) ? In any case, Google search looks quite impressive and the http://www.rexthedog.net/ looks serious, so it's promising provided Aquilina can wikify the article and provide source. Duja 10:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Day, 2017[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Paul E. Ester 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *headdesk* what's with all the massive crystal balling lately? Whispering 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Per WP:NOT, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is a major anniversary for Canada Day (150th) and certain to take place. Ifnord 19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certain to take place" - really? are you sure? dun-dun-der...!!! Bwithh 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the rest of that item for WP:NOT also says By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. which is the case here as Mathew5000 has pointed out. -- Whpq 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those events are 22 and 24 years away respectively. This article refers to something in a decade. Ifnord 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than the time to the event, I suggest concentrating on the "nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research". Other than the fact that it's the 150th anniversary, what other sourced information can be added at this point? Plans? Controversies? Published speculation? Those would all be good reasons to keep it, but none of those are in the article, and indeed probably don't exist yet. Ziggurat 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not encyclopedic as all the article can say right now is "I bet there will be a big celebration." The article can be re-created when there are actual plans for the event in the real world. --Mathew5000 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Recreate this when there is useful, encyclopedic information to add (probably 2015 or 2016 or so). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the last celebration of an independent Canada? Outrageous soapboxing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whpq and CanadianCaesar - I see a soapbox in my crystal ball... Ziggurat 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom . may Canuck culture flourish for a trillion eons Bwithh 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Everything beyond the first sentence is complete nonsense. The first sentence alone, while factually correct that it will be 150 years since Canada was created as a country, is (in addition to other comments above) indiscriminate information and is of no encyclopedic value. Agent 86 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above crystal-ball and WP:NOT arguments. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because this appears to be nothing but an excuse for a completely POV statement suggesting Canadian culture will disappear after 2017. 23skidoo 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A McMahonist never fails to acknowledge the hard work of others. NWO-Wolfpac 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Way too far in the futureto require an article. 70.106.115.245 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you take out the soapboxing and crystal ballism, there's not much left. --Metropolitan90 06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there will likely be a Dominion Day in 2017, the content of the article fails WP:HOAX WilyD 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia not a crystal ball, Wikipedia not a soapbox, North American Union conspiracy-cruft, etc...--Jersey Devil 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the entry is obviously frivolous and should be jettisoned immediately.Michael Dorosh 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WallBonk[edit]

A perfect example of why we need a speedy criterion for blatant spam: an article on a website hosted on Freewebs. Just zis Guy you know? 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And add my voice to the {{db-spam}} proposal. Ifnord 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is not notable at present time. Maybe we just need a speedy delete for anything that has a freewebs link. DrunkenSmurf 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam spam spam... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with Freewebs? This is a great webcomic that's just starting out. The creator is still making more strips.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.228.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. There doesn't have to be anything wrong with it--it could be fine. It just hasn't established notability. --Karnesky 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th Seal (band-U.A.E)[edit]

Non-notable band. The article also reads as a self-promo piece. The chief contributor is The13threaper (talk · contribs), whose contributions seem limited to just this one band. Personally, I think this can easily qualify for a Speedy Delete, but it isn't my call to make. EVula 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as original research. This is a tough one, and I'm frankly not completely comfortable closing it at all. But if I shy away from the tough decisions, then I'm not very useful as an admin. If you treat this AfD as a vote, it is clearly no consensus or keep: discounting participants with less than 100 edits, I see nearly twice the number of editors advocating keep vs. delete. I'm making that clear up front so that when this is inevitably brought to deletion review, no one will accuse me of trying to play games with numbers. The problem is that those advocating keep — with the exception of a single commenter, who cited a comment on jumptheshark.com — are not at all responsive to the central claim. Summarizing broadly (and I apologize in advance to anyone who feels I am unfairly paraphrasing their words), three voters say that the articles should stay because they are interesting. Seven say that they have a personal belief that the article is accurate and the term is "well known" or in wide use, but do not provide any verifiable source. One keep comment is a complete nonsequiteur.

The deletion guidelines for administrators say: 

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, 
avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable 
and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must
determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic
can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

Given that, I am deleting this article because the arguments that it is original research are persuasive. As written, the article is original research along two axes: first, it is original research in the sense that no source is cited that demonstrates that the term was established in common usage outside of Wikipedia. It is also original research in terms of the long list of examples (by which I mean, if Roger Ebert says "Madeleine Kahn disappearing in the Cosby show is an example of "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome", that is not original research, but when a Wikipedia editor makes the same inference, it is.) Nandesuka 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Cunningham syndrome and Chuck Cunningham Syndrome: Lazarus Cunningham[edit]

The text and the premise are rampant violations of WP:OR. Since an official set-in-stone definition of this contrived made-up neologism can never be conclusively proven in any legitimate reference work, it's a dumping ground for anyone to insert their own opinions and stick any info they feel might belong there (however tenuously). wikipediatrix 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a second article. - brenneman {L} 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

l

  • Keep. Television is a solid fixture in the world today. The information pertaining literally to the original Chuck Cunningham situation is all true. It has only been given a name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.70.153 (talk • contribs)
    • But we're not allowed to name things. We only reflect the names others give them. Daniel Case 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it has NOT been named here. We have now posted links showing it was named at least as early as 1997. Wryspy 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you haven't. You've posted a link to someone asking whether a character was "a victim of Chuck Cunningham syndrome". The question doesn't explain what "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" actually is in that context. There's no way to know that it is the syndrome described in this article, and it certainly doesn't constitute a source to support the content of this article. Five days ago, I asked for a source that (a) describes what Chuck Cunningham syndrome is in detail and (b) isn't derived from this Wikipedia article. No-one has yet cited any such source. If you have such a source, please cite it. Uncle G 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced opinions -- Whpq 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a related article and how the similar problems in it are being addressed, see Fonzie syndrome (AfD discussion). Uncle G 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google search shows 13,000 hits, so it's not a neologism but only 142 are unique. Ifnord 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of those hits either refer to the Wikipedia article or are outright mirrors of its text. wikipediatrix 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Thanks to wikipediatrix for pointing that out. Ifnord 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:wikipediatrix herself pointed out that Google results are unreliable. On the article's talk page recently a search gathered 24,000 results of which 16,000 were unique. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then the editor who performed that search should be able to find, amongst those 16,000 results, a source that (a) describes what Chuck Cunningham syndrome is in detail and (b) isn't derived from this Wikipedia article. Please cite a source from the articles that you found. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to that point: Excluding the word "Wikipedia" from that search actually makes the problem clearer. Relatively few articles come up in the resulting Google Web search. Looking at them we see the problem. this, this, this, this, this, and this all cite Wikipedia directly as their source; this cites a Wikipedia mirror as its source; and this, this, and this are Wikipedia mirrors that don't contain the word "Wikipedia" on the page. Uncle G 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be correct. NCurse work 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sources did you use to check it? The request for sources at Talk:Chuck Cunningham syndrome#Neologism has gone unanswered, the article cites no sources, and there don't appear to be any sources except Wikipedia itself. Uncle G 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to (the, as yet, unwritten) continuity issues with characters in episodic media, if there's anything left after removing unsourced specific shows and characters. ("Unsourced" means that no reliable third party commented on the absence.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this nomination seems to have less to do with the content of the article and more to do with the name it currently sits under. User:wikipediatrix seemed happy to keep the article when she thought it might be renamed. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but after giving it some thought, I've decided that a new title that refers to "continuity issues" is just as much a cruftmagnet and a WP:OR violation, because what constitutes a continuity error is often in the eye of the beholder and a matter of personal opinion. If a new article was to be created that revolved around a similar concept to this one, it would have to find a way to be very specific about what it is supposed to be a list of, and would have to be cited and sourced. Either way, renaming this article solves nothing because the text would still be inherently POV and OR. wikipediatrix 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice of you to have responded here and not on your own talk page, where I first proposed this to you, oh, a week ago. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you go back deep in Wikipediatrix's contribs, you'll find she was actually a major contributor to the article at one point (early June of this year, about), as well as to all these other articles she's waging a jihad against lately. It seems that with her usual complete lack of tact, she went and deleted whole hog sections without first trying to discuss it on the talk page. This upset people, and they reverted, and she reverted back until she just got tired of it, it seems.

          So, obviously, since the other editors couldn't see what a genius she was, the article needs to be deleted. Clearly within the deletion criteria. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • That appears to be entirely false. I've been through the history of this article, and I find exactly one contribution from User:Wikipediatrix in June 2006 — this one, making the very assertion that this article is original research that xe is making in this deletion nomination, followed by this attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. Those belie any assertion that xe didn't try to discuss this first. Xyr removal of unsourced material and repeated requests for sources followed that, the next month. Removing unsourced material and insisting upon sources is entirely in accordance with what we should be doing here. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, see this section of the history; I meant July 2006 (sorry). There's quite a bit of editing there.
            • Yes, I do insist on sources and have planted {{citation needed}} on quite a few pages that I otherwise have nothing to do with myself (see Neil Diamond). I also believe that with doing so comes a need for civility (which you have demonstrated quite amply here and elsewhere, I should add). That means you bring up things like this on talk pages (as I did with the Neil Diamond article). It's part of assuming good faith.
            • Wikipediatrix's discussions on the CCS talk page go from what's qualified for inclusion to whether the name is justified (both legitimate questions IMO) and generally seem to favor keeping the article. BlueMoose then more or less dares her to nominate the article for deletion and, without even responding on the talk page, she calls his bluff (at least with the subpages like Lazarus Cunningham, Reverse Cunningham and then here. I think it merited more discussion on the talk page as to why deletion, a rather drastic step IMO, was necessary for an article that had been on Wikipedia for longer than Wikipediatrix herself, and the development of some consensus as to that step.
            • As it is, taking it here strikes me more as akin to responding to a losing chess position by knocking all the pieces off the board. Not behavior we should encourage. Daniel Case 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it needs to be cleaned up quite a bit and have all the entries sourced. This is not beyond the grasp of a few people who are actually willing to do it themselves. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hear hear. Ninety-nine percent of Wikipediatrix's edits are either planting {{citation needed}} or {{unreferenced}} on pages, removing unsourced material and similar things which are a lot easier to do than create original content (or, God forbid, look up sources herself and put them in the article), but tend to start edit wars (and when she does bother to create an article, it's something like Dessarae Bradford whose sources themselves do not always support the assertions made in the article and are of dubious notability (I doubt it will survive its pending deletion vote). If I hadn't made the statements I have already in support of renaming, I would vote strong keep just to deter this kind of counterproductive wikicopping. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. You should be insisting upon sources too. Uncle G 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do and I will insist on sources when the lists I'd like to see in support of the Continuity issues with characters in episodic media article, when it exists. But Wikipediatrix seems to believe that attempting to maintain standards even with strict sourcing requirements enforced will be impossible. I know from experience that it is not. It will be a lot of work for some people willing to put it on their watchlists. But it is not impossible. Maybe for drive-by editors, but not for those who have created good original articles. Daniel Case 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. - CheNuevara 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User was Wikipediatrix solicited his vote. Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't. I just asked him to take a look. And FYI, an AfD is not a vote. wikipediatrix 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you mean to say "An AfD discussion is not a vote". But whatever ... Yes, technically it is, but what are all these boldface words doing around here then? We don't count votes per se to avoid sockpuppet ballot stuffing, but people clearly state their positions. They walk like ducks and quack like them. Daniel Case 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He merely alerted me to the presence of this discussion, as commonly occurs on Wikipedia. I hadn't come back to the AfD page since it had been posted, but I probably would have seen it on my own anyway. And I still would have voted delete, because it's still original research, whether or not that user alerted me of it. - CheNuevara 09:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a "she". Look at her user page. Daniel Case 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Well, "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" does seem to be in relatively moderate usage around the interwebternet at least. Its certainly more used than "Fonzie syndrome", though the article on CC syndrome certainly appear to almost entirely original research and cites no reliable sources. If anyone finds that this information can actually be cited with somewhat different content, that would be great though. Wickethewok 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left a message on the original creator's blog (he hasn't edited here in five months) asking where he got the term from. If it isn't a reliable source then there's no doubt the name isn't encyclopedic (Which of course sets up a conundrum: Suppose we rename it yet the other links keep using the term. Six months or a year from now, if someone proposes to rename it back, will we still be able to make the same argument for not doing so?) Daniel Case 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty well-known term. DJ Clayworth 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite some sources to indicate that it is known outside of the Wikipedia article and the articles on other parts of the World Wide Web that use Wikipedia as their source. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't the first time Daniel Case has chosen to spend more time attacking the nominator (me) rather than discussing the issues. I will continue to generally avoid responding to this desperate technique, and would prefer he direct his attempts at character assassination to my talk page, because last time I checked, his opinion of me is not a deciding factor in an AfD and so his insults and insinuations serve no purpose here. If the consensus finds that the article is a violation of WP:OR - and I say it is - then that will be brought to bear, regardless of anyone's attempts to cast doubt on my motives. (My motives, incidentally, are to curb original research on Wikipedia as per policy. Anyone else got a problem with that, use my talk page.) wikipediatrix 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did (see link above), and was utterly and contemptuously ignored. You're being seriously disingenuous here. Daniel Case 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following section is reposted from the Talk:Chuck Cunningham syndrome page. I believe this research should be finished before we decide what to do with the page. Daniel Case 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. After reading through the deletion discussions on the various subpages, and this, I looked at the history. redfarmer created the page back on December 23, 2004; obviously we should ask him where he heard this term. I doubt that will elicit a reply as he has not edited since last November.

    However, in another sense it doesn't really matter anymore. Standards here were a little more loosely enforced back then (believe me). If he did indeed use Wikipedia to create reality and seed his own term, there is nothing we can do about it over a year and a half later. Whether it came from here or not, it's now out there on Google and is part of the reality Wikipedia must reflect. Renaming this article cannot put that particular genie back in the bottle. We can only all agree to be that much more careful and diligent in the future.

    I therefore submit that this whole debate in this subsection is moot.

  • Daniel Case 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known and recognizable term. If there are citations missing, then be bold and add some. If there appear to be examples given that are nonsense or made up, delete them. 23skidoo 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the nomination and the talk page. The assertion is that this article cannot be sourced, because the whole idea of this syndrome was made up here at Wikipedia a year and a half ago, and any discussion of it in the world at large uses Wikipedia as its source. For your argument that this article be kept to hold water, you must be able to refute the assertion that this article is original research. To do that, please cite sources. Uncle G 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete. Sheesh! Given that the entire issue is of the highest calibre WP:Complete Bollocks - it is an example of a continuity error and nothing else - please can we stamp out this nonsense? Eddie.willers 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fonzie Syndrome was just kept by default (no consensus). *sigh* -- nae'blis (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I can't believe anyone would argue in this article's defense with a straight face. Everything about it screams original research. Crabapplecove 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though I have edited the article numerous times, I think it's a stupid article. It would have been okay if it had stopped with the definition of the phenomenon, its Happy Days history, and a couple of examples. For it to become an endless list of examples seems ridiculous. That said, however, look at its history. A LOT of people have contributed to it and obviously find it interesting and worthy of visiting. Failure to deletee it before a year and a half ago doesn't erase the fact that it has unleashed its own reality. The thing exists. If you delete it, eventually it will just come back. Wryspy 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Fonzie Syndrome is a less commonly used term than this, and yet that thing stuck around. Wryspy 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it didn't. It was entirely superceded by an article on a concept that editors did find sources for. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Stop taking yourselves and the web site so seriously. If anyone says "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome", many people, especially Happy Days fans, would know exactly what you're talking about. The content does not violate copyright and is verifiable, as it is used by many others in the internet. So, just leave it alone.
    • I strongly agree. This is one of the most (if not the most) interesting articles I have ever found on Wikipedia. And to the people that say all these examples are original, well, what, are you saying these characters never disappeared on the respective series? Look at how much hard work was put into creating this article. --COMPFUNK2 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You assert that the concept is verifiable. Please cite sources from which editors can verify that this concept exists. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The phrase wasn't invented at Wikipedia - a USENET search finds it first in alt.tv.seinfeld in 1997. But then it only finds 12 uses at all, most of them in the last year. The Cunningham disappearance itself rates an entire section in What Were They Thinking?: The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History (2004) -- thus notable in the context of Happy Days -- but not the term. It may be TV writer jargon as well as online TV fan jargon, but probably not. I don't think the article as it's constituted is notable. A restructured article, however, might be -- I think this is more interesting than Articles for deletion/List of bands named after food listcruft. Interesting != important, true. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article itself, the main definition and the reference to Chuck Cunningham I believe should stay, however the page needs significant modifications. It is a pop-culture neologism that does seem to be used in real life, but that real life usage has a sketchy and nebulous definition, and this article should reflect that. What should definitely be deleted is the long list of other shows, all of which can easily be rolled into the specific articles on those shows. There is no meaningful reason why these various character departures are grouped in this way, and this grouping and the inherent decisions about inclusion is original research. Anyway many entries in the list seem to break some aspect of the criteria of the syndrome as described by the article (eg the character's departure is briefly mentioned later). Of course that criteria is sketchy because the entire concept cannot be pegged to an concise external real-life definition, so this article cannot contain the multi-examples. Asa01 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the entire concept cannot be pegged to an concise external real-life definition" seems to be a very clear statement that the concept is original research. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these syndrome articles don't get deleted (and they should), I propose we remove the long unnecessary lists of opinionated/subjective examples from each of them, and add some sort of infobox that notes "This is NOT a list" or some such language, hopefully discouraging other editors from turning it back into the cruftmagnet "how many more examples can you think of?" parlor game. wikipediatrix 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it's been asserted by many that I created my own reality on Wikipedia, I did not. In the early television forums on the Internet, frequently questions would be asked like, "What happened to the youngest daughter from Family Matters" or some such question. The short answer was: Chuck Cunningham syndrome. I will be the first to admit that this term hasn't caught on as well as jumping the shark. However, if you look at the early versions of the entry that I edited, they did refer to it as a slang term. I see that since I've become inactive on Wiki, the entry has blossomed into a virtual clone of the jump the shark article. However, the fact that it is now imperfect does not mean it should be deleted. redfarmer 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is exactly zero record of that. There's no mention in any Usenet FAQ document, and no record in Google Groups. Please cite some sources. Uncle G 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He said "Internet forums". That doesn't necessarily mean Usenet. Daniel Case 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Xe also wrote "early", which does. And xe didn't cite any sources. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's dumb but it exists. Travislangley 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I found a SOURCE that dates the term back to AT LEAST 1998, so it was not a term made up by the original Wikipedia poster. [51] Wryspy 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to see WP:IAR championed on WP with as much zealotry as all of the other rules. --Proteus71 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IAR is not a rule, not a policy, not even a guideline. wikipediatrix 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." This is what WP says. What you say contradicts WP. By your own reasoning, we should ignore your statement above since it contradicts WP. --Proteus71 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rest of us are here to write a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free of original research and that has the NPOV. If your sole argument is that we should ignore the policy against original research, then you have failed to make a case for keeping the article with a resounding thud. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the article to be both interesting and useful. I believe making a notation of the criticism or that people question it's validity to be appropriate warning for readers more than outright deletion. I think a lot of emerging pop culture vocabulary, references and what not are in significant usage long before they are they are documented by an "official" source. That is one of the advantages of Wikipedia over slower evolving references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.108.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep A legitimate and well known television phenomenon. The term isn't a neologism, it's a recognized TV industry term (a somewhat whimsical one, but jargon can be that way sometimes), and while it could use more documentation and citations, it's certainly within the realm of an encyclopedic topic, not Original Research, and belongs in wikipedia. --Wingsandsword 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite some sources, then. Citations have been requested several times, and despite that no source describing this syndrome, that isn't itself derived from the Wikipedia article, has yet been cited. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. I do not object a rename. Sijo Ripa 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has always been one of my favorite TV-related Wikipedia articles, and it would be a shame to let it go. It's a perfectly notable article, and the phenomenon is widespread in pop culture. Wouldn't be against renaming it, but the neologism here IS out there and people know what it means when you say it. (What else would you call it... disappearing character, maybe?) As for the length, maybe it could be split into a base article and a list? You know, having the main article describe the phenomenon and maybe cite a FEW examples, and then list more in a separate "List of..." article? Feel free to strike me down on that. Andy 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a similar idea, make one article defining all the "syndromes" (Chuck Cunningham, Darrin, Fonzie etc.) and link each one to a seperate list page. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hope whoever is keeping score notes that most of the "Keep" people are basically saying the article shoud stay just because they like it, not out of any policy-based concerns. Crabapplecove 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of us are saying that it should stay because the phenomenon it illustrates is encyclopedic and we are amenable to renaming. Daniel Case 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed (although I think the name should remain the same). --Anthony Rupert 04:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The charge is that the article is original research. Simply asserting that one thinks that the article "is encyclopaedic" does not refute that charge. Citing sources does. The only person so far in this entire discussion who has cited any sources at all is me, and all of the sources that I could find were based upon Wikipedia. If you want to argue that the article is not original research, please cite sources. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think wikipediatrix is acting in good faith; this article, together with most of Daniel Case's similiar articles, should have the WP:OR (including all lists of examples which cannot be sourced as having a third party refer to as the name of the article (now) or section (after merger)) removed. I'm not convinced that any of this can be sourced, but certainly the lists must be removed. I'm convinced that none of it has yet been sourced in the article. If kept, I'm going to delete the entire list of examples as none of them has a source. (I don't want to do it now, as it might prejudice this AfD.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why aren't you convinced that the lists have been sourced? What exactly do people have against television-related articles on Wikipedia lately? And yes, I did read WP:OR thoroughly, so my argument isn't due to ignorance on my part. I mean, this article was up for months (maybe even years), and now, all of a sudden, it's being proposed for deletion? As I said before, it's not like these important characters didn't vanish from their respective shows. I am also one of the many people that had heard of the phrase "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" long before I even heard of Wikipedia.

      If anything, maybe the examples could be made into a list on its own page, but as far as deleting them entirely (as well as deleting the main article), I am still strongly opposed to that. --Anthony Rupert 02:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • That an article has slid under the radar for a long time does not give it a magic pass that enables it to be free of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you have heard of the syndrome outside of Wikipedia, you should be able to cite sources. Please cite sources. No sources have yet been cited for this syndrome, despite all the editors who are arguing that this is not original research being asked several times to cite some. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How is any of this original research when all you have to do is be a fan of a particular TV series, watch it regularly, and have a good memory? Wl219 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's original research because there's no evidence that the notion of this syndrome exists independently of Wikipedia, given that the only sources that can be found that discuss it all refer back to this article as their source. There's no evidence that this wasn't simply made up in Wikipedia. The creator has been asked to cite sources, but as yet all that we have are assertions and no sources to give them foundation. Uncle G 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having the list of shows (where someone - a WP editor - makes a personal decision about what might or might not be a case of CCS) is also original research. I'm happy to have an article if an external source exists and can be referenced. That said, all the content on the article must be sourced, we can't only source the term but then also have the unsourced list of shows. Asa01 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Rename. The article stays, methinks. But the title seems to be Original Research. If a good title can't be thought of, Keep. --Quadraxis 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't rename. The article is about the term. What's to rename? Wryspy 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possibly rename but definite keep as it has very good relevance and I personally wouldn't judge it to be original research (except maybe the title), on the grounds that it has been demonstrated simply from the list, that it is widespread. - Рэдхот 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and, I would also support de-merging the list. - Рэдхот 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: Uncle G, you wrote "The only person so far in this entire discussion who has cited any sources at all is me... there's no evidence that this wasn't simply made up in Wikipedia", and the only thing I can conclude from this is that the only parts of this discussion you have been reading are your own. User:Wryspy has provided a reference from JumptheShark.com in 1998 and User:Dhartung has linked to a USENET search which includes this page from 1997, both of which have been placed in the lead section of the article. I'd say that a source describing and using the phrase that predates the article's creation by seven and a half years is, in fact, evidence. Wouldn't you agree? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is the crux of the matter: will WP articles get deleted in spite of evidence that such deletion is not deserved? If so, and if it happens with enough frequency, WP will lose volunteers who will in turn spawn new Wikis. --Proteus71 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still haven't seen any evidence that this deletion is not deserved. Even if someone else did coin this term in 1997 or 1998, that still doesn't make it notable, and I still don't see how there can be an article that definitively states that such-and-such show is or is not part of this silly concept. That is Original Research in the worst and lamest way. Crabapplecove 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I still haven't seen any evidence that this deletion is not deserved." And we have no evidence that you are not a communist. Is this really the kind of logic you meant to use? --Proteus71 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No such evidence has been presented. Please present some. Uncle G 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What evidence would you need to see in order to change your position? --Proteus71 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I specified that five days ago. Uncle G 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw both of those. (Dhartung did not cite the third.) Neither is a source. A set of Google Groups search results isn't a source. And a one-sentence mention that doesn't even explain what it means by "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" isn't a source. A source would tell one what Chuck Cunningham syndrome was. Neither do. Please also read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. Uncle G 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you saw them both, then why did you write "there's no evidence that this wasn't simply made up in Wikipedia" when it so clearly wasn't? They are both sources. What you mean, in fact, is that neither is a primary source. And the 1997 one is fairly descriptive - "this character has disappeared and the rest of them are acting like he didn't exist" "that's called Chuck Cunningham Syndrome, after the character in Happy Days". It may not be usable as a core foundation for the whole article, but that doesn't mean you should ignore that it exists. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Like I said before, if this article is such an issue, why are people just now complaining about it? With these strong arguments for keeping it, it should tell you right there how important the article is. If you're not interested in the article, don't visit it; simple as that. --Anthony Rupert 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "strong arguments for keeping it"? Not a single source has been cited, despite 5 days of asking. You haven't cited a source, either, or indeed made any argument that refutes the assertion that this article is original research. Your only argument is "We haven't spotted this until now, so we must keep it." That's not only not a strong argument, it isn't an argument based upon our policies and guidelines at all. Uncle G 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Identification Number[edit]

An unmaintainably long list of codes which can be authoritatively looked up on the web. We have already deleted the list of SWIFT codes, I think this should go the same way. Just zis Guy you know? 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article needs some cleanup, and the list should be removed. -- Whpq 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there is a precedent for this being deleted, please provide a link. Just because something is available elsewhere on the web doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't have an article. Sorry, but it is a weak argument. Could use some cleaning up, but that's no reason from an AfD. EVula 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the list of every number is inappropriate in the article, I have removed those. Ifnord 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, but remove the list of codes. RFerreira 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list was rightly removed; the current article, while short, is informative and so worth keeping. Ziggurat 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. Kudos to Ifnord who eliminated the concern in the nomination. GRBerry 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RHaworth 11:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign Kingdom of Antarctica[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. Google and Amazon searches turn up 0 hits for the "book" Wildthing61476 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Author also added hoax references to this "book" in the Da Vinci Code and Michael Crichton articles, and then attacked and threatened me on my talk page for removing them. NawlinWiki 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - This seems like a hoax (I can't find any results, either), and, to boot, it reads like an advertisement. Srose (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise. EVula 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, nonsensical hoaxery. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, apparently poppycock. Thesocialistesq 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire ice... WP:SNOW and WP:BALLS. Yeah, I went there. --Kinu t/c 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP. Just another internet hoax. Paragon12321 01:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even given that there's truth in this, guess what's not a crystal ball? Danny Lilithborne 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this already, someone. What are you waiting for? Crabapplecove 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete please, ASAP! Em-jay-es 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Cage[edit]

WP:NFT. Contested prod; no unambiguous hits on google that I could find [52]. Mangojuicetalk 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a very local drinking game. Also appears to be WP:NOR. --Porqin 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Porqin's assetion of WP:NOR. Ifnord 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not to defend or glorify binge drinking, but it is my contention that this article is being singled out because of a gray area in wikipedia's rules and intentions. I agree that the scholarly literature of this variation of speed quarters is limited, but perhaps this is not the game's fault, but rather a reflection on the lack of scholarly literature about college drinking games in general. Now, this dearth of literature should not be taken as evidence that the game does not exist, it should be balanced against the fact that scholarly literature tends to overlook "soft" subjects such as drinking games.

    To clarify, a quick look at many other drinking games shows a similar lack of citations (Mr. Three, Land Mine, One Fat Hen, Captain Paf, and GreenMonster, among others). However, does this mean that they are not played by the general public? Does it mean that these games do not have an impact on many people's lives? Does it mean that these games do not exist? Of course not. However, if wikipedia maintains its reliance on scholarly materials these postings would need to be deleted as well, which would be counter to the mission of wikipedia, which from what I interpret it to be, is to extend all types of knowledge and information to the world.

    I would appreciate any and all responses. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.234.64 (talk • contribs)

    • I "singled out" this article because I found it when I deleted an image that was marked for speedy deletion. Other similar articles should also be deleted, but I can't do everything. :) Mangojuicetalk 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was a concerted effort back in May to clear these out. Pretty much every one we had was nominated for deletion, and most were deleted. Only a handful, which could be clearly verified as common and widely documented, were kept. Even though external sources may not have been added to the articles, they were referenced in the AFD's for the ones that were kept. They don't seem to exist here. Fan-1967 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N is the most legitimate argument against this article. Mangojuice is correct that a Google Search for “Rage Cage” brings up many similarly-named topics unrelated to this drinking game. It’s worth noting that the game is often simply called “Speed Quarters” – this is actually a predecessor that already exists in WP and results in numerous Google hits. Many of these hits describe the variant that this article calls “Rage Cage.” Of course, Google is not the final arbiter of notability.

    The game is widely played in a specific region. This regional predominance is correctly noted by Porqin. Whether or not this constitutes non-notability is up to the admins. As I live in the region where the game is relevant, I think it is notable. Wikipedia would lose much of its relevance to casual users if national and/or international recognition became a necessary condition for inclusion. WP:N is a critical rule, but I believe it’s too ephemeral and subjective to be the sole factor for elimination here.

    Please follow the link to an MLA formatting guide for a defense to the WP:NOR assertion.[53] MLA dictates that “You do not need to give sources for familiar proverbs, well-known quotations or common knowledge. Remember, this is a rhetorical choice, based on audience” (scroll down to the “When a Citation is not Needed” header). I am admittedly new enough to Wikipedia that I don’t know the generally-accepted citation rules, but I presume that the rules that apply to academic papers would also suffice here. In browsing through other well-developed WP articles, it seems that the stardards are perhaps even more lenient than that.

    The WP:NFT assertion is poorly informed. It’s understandable those unfamiliar with the topic would attribute their unfamiliarity to WP:NFT. However, the game is widely played, albeit in a regional setting. As with most informal competitions, and nearly all drinking games, its origins are impossible to document, but its proponents would assert that the game has undoubtedly existed for more than a decade.

    This article needs cleanup, and contributions from outside of the San Francisco area are necessary. However, I don’t agree that it should be deleted. I do value this discussion, and look forward to your comments. S myrick 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I disagree that WP:N is the only issue. The problem isn't that "Google Search for “Rage Cage” brings up many similarly-named topics unrelated to this drinking game." The problem is that Google fails to bring up results that are relevant. The only relevant result I can find is the Stanford "Beerlympics" piece cited in the article. So, it is not "common knowledge" that this is a widespread game, even in a local area. WP:OR does apply, and verifiable citations from reliable sources are needed to establish that this is not just something made up in school. Fan-1967 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Fan-1967 You are correct that reliable sources are needed to establish that this is "not just something made up in school." The WP:NFT page that you linked to includes the following:
        The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia:
        School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia.
        For example, Catherine Gewertz has written an article, published in Education Week in 2001, about the school craze of freak dancing, which makes freak dancing a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. It's verifiable, the research has already been done (and peer reviewed and fact checked) outside of Wikipedia, and the world at large already knows about the craze from the Education Week article.
        What you should do:
        Only succumb to the temptation to write Wikipedia articles about what was made up in school one day if you can and do cite sources. Reliable sources do not include people writing in web logs or posting pseudonymously on discussion forums.
      This standard indicates that only a single fact-checked, published source is necessary for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia - even if the subject was just something made up in school (which this subject is not). The Rage Cage article links to such a source (The Stanford Daily). So, I'm going to reframe the WP:NFT debate from "Is this something made up in school at some point?" to "Is the Stanford Daily a legitimate publication with acceptable fact-checking procedures?" If not, you're establishing a "legitimacy line" somewhere between the Stanford Daily and Education Week, and I will respectfully ask that you elucidate that line. But, as per the WP:NFT policy, that's the issue at hand. S myrick 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't say there's a "legitimacy line" but clearly Stanford-related culture is going to receive a lot more attention in the Stanford Daily than it would in a clearly independent source like, say, the LA Times. That's not to say that the Stanford Daily article would mean nothing (although I couldn't load it), but it doesn't rise to the level of the freak dancing example; Education Week is a national magazine on education. What I'd look for is independence. I don't believe anyone could insert a mention of their favorite home-made drinking game into the New York Times, but I'm not sure if I believe that about a college newspaper... if that is the one and only source, I'm not inclined to trust it. Mangojuicetalk 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on the single available source, it seems that this article meets the standards for Stanfordpedia or WikiStanford or whatever. I don't see anything beyond that. Fan-1967 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NFT --MECU≈talk 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full disclosure: this is my first editation, having created a username for the express purpose of commenting here. I can assure skeptics that I live across the country from Stanford, am not familiar with this article's author, and therefore am not a "sockpuppet." Regarding independent sources: I have seen "rage cage" referenced in print newspapers in my area. This presents a quandary, since though I am familiar with the game and have seen it referenced in sources independent from the Stanford Daily, these articles are not online and therefore are not available for quotation to support this site. I am therefore forced to reject this article per WP:NOR. Topics such as drinking games fall into a difficult middle ground-- though the subjects and terms themselves are often well-known across wide varieties of groups, they are only rarely referenced in print, and when referenced are published in papers or magazines which are localized by area (such as college campuses, which in many cases would fall prey to the independence requirement) or topic (such as city arts and entertainment papers, which are often not posted online). Such bias therefore precludes them from wiki inclusion, even if their widely acknowledged existence falls within the "spirit" of wikipedia. If it comes to a choice of spirit vs. rules, I vote spirit. I would keep this article based on my own experience and intiution that this topic deserves inclusion under the spirit of wikipedia, despite its arguable violation of one of its rules.Robkit 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the middle ground is difficult. But I have no problem excluding it in order to stick to the important principles. We have to abandon that middle ground to do a good job covering drinking games, (or, more importantly internet memes) but I think that signals an area we shouldn't be covering, rather than a reason to stretch the rules. Mangojuicetalk 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN localised drinking game. -- GWO
  • Redirect this non-notable drinking game to the entirely unrelated Cage Rage. MLA 09:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely seems like a local creation. If we allowed every random drinking game variation it would never end. --64.139.10.218 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seem to be a number of users visiting this discussion, noticing that the game is popular in a local area, and dismissing it on that basis. I (perhaps naively) hope that those who comment have read the article carefully. However, I urge the “Delete” proponents to follow the first two points of AfD/Wikiettiquette:
  • The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
  • Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. For understanding the situation it may also help to look at the history of the article.
I know that no seasoned Wikipedia veteran wants to hear rules from a self-admitted newcomer. But please, make a comment if it is a contribution to the discussion, not just a one-line restatement of that which has already been discussed. I trust that the closing admin will be considering ideas, not head counts.
That said, let me assert that “local” does not mean “non-notable.” This is especially true for articles that document culture, or cultural activities. In fact, the ability to document local culture is a particular strength of Wikipedia – Britannica can only document such things after they have been homogenized through widespread proliferation, which is of dubious value. I’ll let someone else claim that a drinking game can not constitute culture or a cultural activity – to which I will have to spend all day writing a 2000-word defense of the (correct) broad definition of culture. In other words, please don’t :) S myrick 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be a bigger discussion It seems like there’s an emerging theme among the “delete” proponents that drinking games don’t belong on Wikipedia at all – or perhaps that only the very most common warrant inclusion. The latter would be a difficult policy, as drinking games (even the most common) are non-centralized and subject to huge regional variation. To include drinking games at all is to include a diverse array of customs and variations.
Should drinking games be included at all? Though that is a worthwhile discussion to have, it’s a discussion that should take place in a community forum, or Village Pump, rather than on this AfD page. That discussion would hinge largely on interpretations of Wikipedia rules, as both sides have acknowledged that we are in a “gray area” or “middle ground.”
Until that discussion takes place, however, I believe that we should revert to Wikipedia precedent. As it currently stands, drinking games are a series in English Wikipedia, and separate entries exist for many dozens – perhaps hundreds – of games. I realize that the “delete” proponents would make the same deletion arguments for many those entries. However, that’s a discussion that should take place on a larger scale. Citing precedent, and for the sake of consistency and coherent policy, the Rage Cage entry should stand until a larger policy discussion can occur. S myrick 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You write very well, and I certainly hope you decide to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but let's face it, you're trying to argue that a drinking game at one college should be documented as a notable cultural activity. Do you have any idea how many universities there are? Guess what. They all have students who drink, and invent new ways to do it, and terms for how they do it. This isn't about drinking games in general; it's about this one. Fan-1967 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I hope you'll stay and work on the articles we really need. But since you're interested in precedent, I dug around a little bit and found many drinking game deletion precedents. See this debate's talk page for it. Mangojuicetalk 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of Precedent I appreciate the kind words - I've gained a lot of respect for Wikipedia's processes in this discussion. Of course, with those processes in mind I still believe that this article is valid. I've replied to Mangojuice's list of precedents on this debate's talk page with my own. Feel free to click over - but the short version is that there was a concerted effort in May 2006 to delete a number of drinking games (stemming from this AfD). 37 games were individually listed for deletion, of which 32 were kept, 4 were deleted, and 1 was redirected. I believe this is a strong - and recent - precedent. Many of the games that were kept were, I would contend, less notable than Rage Cage. Of course, you're welcome to go through and relist all of them, but that would probably violate WP:POINT :) S myrick 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Name one that's less notable than Rage Cage. Let's be real. Your game is confined to one campus. The only way to be less notable than that is to not exist at all. Fan-1967 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being Real One Fat Hen and Green Monster are two games that I believe to be less notable than Rage Cage that have no documentation. And no, stuff confined to one campus, even though rage cage is clearly not confined to one campus (I do not live at Stanford, and yet I play Rage Cage), can be notable. See "Full Moon on the Quad" for that precedent. And really, the hierarchy of notability should go something like Nation>State>City>Campus>Class>House>Group>Person>Not Existing At All. That said, it has been a pleasure to chat with all of you, and this whole debate has kept me very entertained while at work. May we all go on WikiPedia and make the world a better place. A Wiki-place.
  • Delete of smerge to speed quarters or quarters. This isn't independently notable.--Karnesky 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at request of author. Tyrenius 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamskating and Photoskating[edit]

Completely non-notable activities / variations of typical "photo blogging"/etc. Seems to be an attempt to use the Wikipedia to start a trend. ZERO Google results. User has removed prod tags. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I prod'ed them in the first place. A non-existant trend is about as non-notable as they come. Dipics 19:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it -- the best pictures are going to be taken while the skater is stationary. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all I agree with the concerns and objections: it's fair to remove instantly both articles: photoskating and streamskating. Please go ahead instantly! (I haven't found a way to do it myself.) ;-) (Szezo 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment, alrighty. Both articles have been tagged with {{db-author}}. Closure of the AfD would be appreciated. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk Space[edit]

Creater removed prod as s/he feels that notabily was established on Talk page. References are two MySpace sites and offical site that crashed my browser. Appears to fail WP:N but you all decide. Mattisse 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - bad faith nomination - article was created with AfDs in mind, notability established on talk page as to avoid this very process. I will repeat reasons here. 630 unique Google hits for "trunk space" phoenix, 506 unique Google hits for "trunk space" music, and 722 unique Google hits for "trunk space" art. Notable venue in major American city and its music and art scene. Coverage in multiple, non-trivial publications and televison shows. See also 924 Gilman Street, ABC No Rio, Che Cafe, The Casbah, The Smell, etc., and the corresponding AfD discussions for Che Cafe and The Smell. It does not fail WP:N or WP:V - the article was written with those in mind! PT (s-s-s-s) 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Counting google hits is a very different thing than looking at the actual results. Seems a lot of people in Phoenix are selling cars with plenty of trunk space. Or they're looking for a ride share and have or need trunk space. Paging through the results finds a huge number of irrelevant entries. Fan-1967 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I used qualifiers like "art" and "music" in the search. I've done this before, Fan-1967. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean like "Limited trunk space, ie: 2 bags per person. Open to music selection"? (That is actually the top item, result #501, that shows on your second search.) Fan-1967 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why don't you go count how many pertain to the venue then? Is there lack of evidence that this place exists, that the shows and events and corresponding coverage are hoaxes? I didn't enter this with my head in the sand, and neither should any other editor. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No one ever claimed it was a hoax. A lot of the hits do not relate to this plae at all, and the ones that do seem to be simply listings ("appearing 8:00 Thursday the 5th at Trunk Space"). Where are the "non-trivial" references? Fan-1967 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • azcentral.com, which is the website for the Arizona Republic. Phoenix New Times and they're corresponding site, phoenixnewtimes.com. And, the KTVK TV appearence. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Currently the article just says the venue has been featured in the Phoenix New Times, the Arizona Republic, and on Good Morning Arizona on KTVK.. I think Fan-1967 is actually looking for the sources for these to be included in the article to verify said claims. DrunkenSmurf 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I see where the problem was with the references, it was a code error that has since been corrected. I also forgot to mention the PBS appearence. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and comment almost certainly fails WP:SPAM and seems like it may get past WP:CORP by the skin of its teeth. Remains problematic, but I'm not sure what ought to be done. WilyD 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment (per new edit) - "What ought to be done"? If you have issue with the article, help make it better!PT (s-s-s-s) 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm thinking it over. I have recinded my "vote" in this discussion, so it's not a big deal that there's something that I don't like about the article, even if I'm having difficulty putting my finger on it. WilyD 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your civility. I'm sorry you don't "like" something about the article, but it's factual, presented neutrally (no "best place in Phoenix!" statements), and with references. Sorry about the confusion before, when I typed the code out wrong, and the references weren't visible. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already established how it passed WP:V. Tell me how it fails WP:SPAM. It's written in a neutral point of view, it only reports facts already established in reliable sources. Does every article about an establishment or venue fail WP:SPAM? PT (s-s-s-s) 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article contains no verifiable sources thus it fails WP:V. NPOV doesn't really relate to SPAM, although they can go hand in hand. Articles with NPOV can be SPAM, and articles with NPOV may not be SPAM. The defining characteristic of SPAM is that Wikipedia is being used to promote something, rather than document something. Lots of establishments and venues pass WP:SPAM because they're worthy of an encyclopaedia article, which this is not. WilyD 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First off, you are assuming bad faith by accusing me of writing the article to promote something. I wrote it because it belongs, just as the other articles about venues belong. I wrote it to document the space, which is a notable contribution to the town (see everything I wrote above). Second, it has been verified. I can add more and more links to stories about the space, and in a few days, I might even be able to post a link to the video from the KTVK appearence. With all that said, what do you really have left to delete this for? PT (s-s-s-s) 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This remains untrue. I've assumed nothing about you - I judged the article on it's own merits, and made some inferences from what was presented. As the article has no references, it fails WP:V and shows numerous characteristics of being spam, which I cautioned I was not certain of. But that's a usual inference from the fact that it appears to fail WP:CORP. To be perfectly frank, the ad hominem attacks here only further convince me that it's spam. WilyD 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have not attacked you personally in any way, shape, or form. I see where the problem was with the references, it was a code error that has since been corrected. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have, in fact, accused me of assuming bad faith and accused the nominator of making a bad faith nomination. Both of these are ad hominem attacks because they're arguments based upon the person making the argument, rather than the central issue of this discussion, whether some random art house is deserving of an article. WilyD 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Today isn't my first day on Wikipedia, I have created articles, made edits, written essays, participated in AfDs... I'm not here to "spam". Citing someone for bad faith is not in of itself acting in bad faith. The creation of the article, the notability, references, etc. included, was to show that it's not a "random art house." Did you read the article yet?. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I never claimed you acted in bad faith, I claimed you made ad hominem arguments, which you did. I never said word one about you, so it's fairly hard to decode what (if any) assumptions I made about you. WilyD 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This is getting ridiculous. And none of this has to do with the notability of the article, which has already been established. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you look at List of U.S. concert venues at Trunk Space and Modified Arts nomimated below and the lists of other sites tacked on to this and the other articles, you begin to see the web of interconnecting sites that is being constructed. Just from Wikipedia and mirror sites there would be an exponentially growing list of Google hits. Somewhere in those lists, if you look, it starts to go international - lists of venues in London, etc. - all interwoven to connecting sites. I live in an area where some famous band/group/singer plays almost weekly at one of the many music venues nearby and my state is not even on the List of U.S. concert venues. I find that odd. Mattisse 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - I provided those Google stats on a talk page BEFORE the article was posted, so they don't include Wikipedia or mirror sites that would pick up on the creation of the article. You can even add -wikipedia to the search, the results remain the same. You are assuming bad faith in my intentions here and outright ignoring the ways in which I asserted notability, cited references, and planned for a trigger-happy AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of solid verifiability/notability. BigHaz 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What more do you need than what's already in there? Perhaps it can be found and placed within the article. Specify what's wrong with the sources already in there. Do you know much about Phoenix New Times or Arizona Republic? Are the television appearences not good enough for you? Did you look at the talk pages or the other precedents for The Smell and Che Cafe? PT (s-s-s-s) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing my vote on the solid research done by other users in this discussion already, which demonstrates that a great many of the tests for notability are failed hands down and that the appearances of this venue in the media you cite are minor references at best. Those arguments seem convincing enough to me. BigHaz 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid research"? Explain. You're basing your vote on the other votes in the AfD and haven't actually read the article? PT (s-s-s-s) 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid research" being the long and drawn out discussion above to do with the myriad of Google sources not in fact being Google sources about the venue so much as they are requests for carpooling and such or vague mentions that so-and-so is going to be performing there. I have also read the article and don't necessarily believe that a venue like this is inherently notable. BigHaz 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs verified sources. Current lack of them does not mean article should be deleted. Kellen T 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep venue has won a "Best of Phoenix" award[54] from the Phoenix New Times, seems fairly notable. -MrFizyx 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope that the linked review/award might address some of the WP:V concerns discussed above. I'll leave it to PT to add this new info to the article, I was lucky to run across this while researching the Rhythm Room. -MrFizyx 07:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! So added. Removed the AZ Republic mention, I'm having a hard time finding web versions of printed material. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more sources, yes, but as Kellen says, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. 20,000+ ghits for "trunk space" phoenix suggests it's notable enough, as do the write ups in the local papers--but again, some links to such articles and whatnot would be nice. --heah 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Revise. This needs sources and to be edited so it reads less like an advertisement. (Clamster5 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I thank you for your keep vote, but I must ask, what makes it sound like an advertisement? I wrote only facts, no hyperbole. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If places like the Smell in LA are included in Wikipedia than i feel it is only fair that you keep The Trunk Space. 4.240.251.167 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability. Needs some serious work, though. Wyatt Riot 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Inverted Sort of Prayer[edit]

Non-notable first book published this year by a non-notable author. Article was written by the author himself who then removed prod. My vote is Delete Dipics 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's rather harsh, isn't it. Why so nasty? Who are you to limit the freedom of information? Needhamchris 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)CN[reply]

  • Comment Please don't take this personally Needhamchris, articles on Wikipedia have to meet certain critera for inclusion and this process helps all editors evaluate if this particular article does. Take a look at some of the guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY, this will help you and others familiar with the subject hopefully create an article that meets the guidelines most editors look at. DrunkenSmurf 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as the guidelines say, to self-promote. I don't think it was Dipics' intention to "limit the freedom of information" as you had said, however. There are many places to post information about a book, it's just that Wiki policies implicitly prohibit that. SliceNYC 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This first novel from a new author is also apparently published by a publisher that is publishing their first work. At least it is the only one listed on their website. It isn't listed on Amazon at all, or anywhere else but at the website of this recently virgin publisher. Soon I'm sure that they will have their first non-author's-family sale. Not meaning to sound "harsh" but this is about as non-notable as they come. Nobody is limiting the authors ability to express himself. No freedom of speech or information issues here. But, there is no law in any country that requires anyone to supply the author with a soapbox. If he wants to advertise this first everything book, he should find an appropriate venue, not Wikipedia. Nothing but spam, harsh or not. Beaner1 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SOAP; WP:VANITY and various others. Byrgenwulf 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. And I will reenforce DrunkenSmurf that notability isn't a reflection of the "quality" of Needhamchris, the book, or this article. The book and article could be "good," but still not belong here. --Karnesky 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HWC[edit]

Backyard wrestling federation, completely non-notable. One sentence should sum it up perfectly about one of their matches with regards to attendance: "The match started out in a nearby park in front of a crowd of at least 20 people". Wildthing61476 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 word-for-word repost of deleted article. Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Corvino on Homosexuality[edit]

There are a number of very significant problems with this article.

  1. This article appears to be nothing more than a detailed summary of a copyrighted work. I am concerned that it is not a fair use of Corvino's copyrighted essay.
  2. This article contains zero links to other articles. It is unsuitable for inclusion Wikipedia in its present form.
  3. Only two articles link here, one created in response to an edit war on Homosexuality, and one link from Homosexuality also in respose to the edit war.
  4. The article appears to be written from a non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), summarizing and quoting from Corvino in an attempt to create an article to advance a position.

Wikipedia already contains numerous articles discussing social, religious, and other objections to homosexuality and responses to those objections; those articles suffer from none of the above concerns, and additionally cover the topic in much greater detail.

Related articles for deletion[edit]

The following two articles are essentially exact clones of this one. The three should be deleted together.

--Ptkfgs 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete all per nom. -- Steel 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All These articles are copyvios, original research, or violate NPOV (or pick-and-choose a combination. It's fun, and accurate!). As such, all three should be deleted. EVula 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The other two are already covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Corvino's defense of homosexuality. The author of this one clearly created this copy after the other AFD's result was clear, which seems to me a gross abuse of process. There ought to be a category to speedy this as soon as the other AFD concludes. Fan-1967 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, as a process matter, Speedy Close this AFD and bundle this article into the AFD for the identical articles. Fan-1967 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was created in *response* to an edit war on Homosexuality. I did not personally know about any previous AfD. WP:AGF A summary is not a copyright violation, summaries are clearly allowed under copyright law. The majority of what we do here as editors is summarize. Also, summarizing is not WP:OR. And summarizing what someone else said also does not violate WP:NPOV, you are stating what *they* said, not what you are saying. That John Corvino has many publications to his name is evidence of his own notability. I had originally included this content on his own wikipage but some people didn't like that either. I have no particular personal need to keep it, I was only trying to stop the edit warring by creating it as a seperate article. Wjhonson 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The edit war has been resolved for the time being, via semi-protection of Homosexuality. A summary of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and in this case I am skeptical that it is one allowed by fair use. Regardless of your intent in posting the summary — which I understand was simply an attempt to cool the edit war — the article as written appears to be a position paper. --Ptkfgs 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm not convinced it's over, the anon seemed pretty agitated by the numerous repostings. It will probably crop up elsewhere at some point. The other issue, is no a summary doesn't violate copyright law. There are many examples of this. If your summary of a 100 page book, is itself 100 pages, that probably is a violation. But if its 10 pages, you're fine. I mean, just imagine an article in the New York Times, not being able to state what the summary of a book was. They do it all the time. On you point that it's a position paper, that's the point. That's why the article is "John Corvino" on Homosexuality, instead of "a bunch of people" on Homosexuality... Are you saying position papers, or dissertations, don't belong on wikipedia? Wjhonson 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That is an oversimplification of the issue. I honestly do not feel that I even need to read Corvino's essay after reading the summary (it's a pretty exhaustive explanation of his arguments). To me that says that the summary is using the "heart" of the work, and is encroaching upon Corvion's potential market. Additionally, I don't think the summary is commenting on Corvinos essay or using it as part of a larger work. It is merely a summary, and the purpose of the summary appears to be merely to convey Corvino's arguments to the reader. If you examine the four fair use considerations at WP:FU, I think my concerns about the severity of the derivation are warranted. Secondly — a position paper is a text which advocates a particular position; that is exactly what WP:NPOV aims to prevent. A dissertation (in the academic sense) is necessarily original research. Neither of these are permissible under current Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --Ptkfgs 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Everything is original research at some point. Relativity was original research when Einstein did it. That doesn't prevent us from having an article about it. This isn't an original essay published on Wikipedia. It's coverage of work published elsewhere. There's a big difference. Ace of Sevens 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge John Corvino himself is notable enough to have an article and this article is mentioned there, just not linked. The lack of wikilinks to and from is just because no one has added them, not an inherent problem. This seems to be significant information about soemone who is notable enough for inclusion, so it shoudl either be moved to the John Corvino page or kept where it is. Ace of Sevens
    • Comment - Corvino's article is also up for deletion, so I'd suggest that hardly proves notability (my gut feeling looking at the article is that he may not be notable). Further, the fact that a person who has written something is notable doesn't make everything he's written notable. Strong delete this for showing up again and again and have a good long look at Corvino's own article into the bargain. BigHaz 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all per Ptkfgs. It's all original research that keeps getting re-created under different titles. ... discospinster talk 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all per nom. Crabapplecove 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom. (Think I got logged-out there) Dlyons493 Talk 12:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFD on the other copies has been closed as Delete. As an identical copy of the same material, this should be deleted as well. Fan-1967 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: Closed as "keep. I don't know if I'm allowed (as a non-admin) to discount the only delete vote, but it looks pretty unreliable and POV to me. Obviously any admin can unclose..." by --james(talk) 10:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC) but reopened by nae'blis 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC). I'm concerned about not discounting 1&only's opinion unfairly, and this isn't an unambiguous case.[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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomText[edit]

Procedural completion of partial nomination by 1&only (talk · contribs); I abstain, as I do not have enough knowledge to say this is worthy of an article or not. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure - I work for an originization which uses ZoomText to meet accessibility requirements, and we have found that ZoomText has met these needs well.-- Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Argon233. --MECU≈talk 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be kept because it served me a lot. I knew about that program through Wiki-Pedia and the program has served me a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.0.202 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - On www.magnifiers.org there is a huge list of screen magnifiers.
    Some of them have magnification more then 32.
    Some of them are freeware. Some of them served me a lot.
    More of them has for many years been a well known software tool in the accessibility/enabling software category.
    ZoomText is "special" because it cost over $500.
    ZoomText is Advertisements masquerading as articles ( see WP:SPAM ).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1&only (talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Full disclosure - 1&only (talk · contribs) has admited here that he/she is a developer of a competing product, and so has an apparent conflict of intrest and/or potential to gain by the removal of the ZoomTest article from Wikipedia. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weak keep, but cleanup. Notability isn't asserted. How does it pass WP:SOFTWARE? Note also Argon233 and 1&only's rv war on the Screen Magnifier page.--Karnesky 21:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Google test on ZoomText results in about 294,000 results. Please look at the number of *.edu sites that come up on that search, including the number of libraries that are using this product.
  2. Subject is notable enough to be included in the short list of Accessibility Technology products on OOo.[55] -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had an employee with retinitis pigmentosa that was being overtaken by macular degeneration. Needless to say, she was losing her ability to see peripherally and centrally. Because of this program, I was able to keep her working for more than three years. This may not sound like a lot to us, but it was the difference between life and no life for her. This product was suggested to us by the Association for the Blind and was provided at no cost to us. Most of the blind and those looking for information on it, have heard about it by name. I would have no problem with linking it with other magnifyers, but it would be nice for them to get unbiased info for it on wikipedia as well as on product websites. The article does need work though.--Dematt 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Arts[edit]

This is like Trunk Space (see above). Plus see list at bottom of page, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._concert_venues . So we can just get ready for them all, plus the ones that follow because precedent has been set. Fails WP:N and WP:V but you decide what Wikipedia is to be. Mattisse 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just noticed that my whole state isn't even on that List of U.S. concert venues. And my state is one of the most populated in the US. In my city alone -- and it is not the biggest in the state -- there are dozens of concert venues at least as notable as Trunk Space and Modified Arts. I'm sure New York City must have more that the 12 listed. Humm. What to do? And that's just the US. We do have the whole world. Mattisse 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So make articles for those venues! That's what I did. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - So you are saying that the fact that the 17 states listed on the Complete listing of U.S. concert venues are the only states with U.S. concert venus out of all the 50 states makes sense to you? Or would you consider that list might be somewhat skewed by the promotional and management agency listed at the end of some of those lists? It's not strange to you that 33 states have no concert venues at all, while Phoenix has almost as many as New Yourk City? Mattisse 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. I am saying Wikipedia does not come complete. It is organic, it is growing. Someone needs to include those 33 states. Someone needs to write articles about the venues from each of those states. You can not fault one editor for writing an article about something he or she is interested in just because other editors have not written corresponding articles for their areas. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cited sources, but appears to be notable. Kellen T 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ditto Kellen. 33,000+ ghits for "modified arts" phoenix. --heah 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is very much a part of Phoenix's cultural core. 4.240.251.167 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs properly-formatted cites, but looks notable. Wyatt Riot 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet WP:N and WP:V. CDaniel 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Ng[edit]

Non-notable classical musician. Still in college, no albums, just a few state awards.--BaronLarf 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not noteable. Could be in college and noteable, but she isn't. --MECU≈talk 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete (nn). --Karnesky 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagy Run[edit]

neologism Nuttah68 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kickball. - Bobet 15:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer baseball[edit]

...and speaking of things made up in school one day... Rklawton 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's impossible to verify this by doing a web search, so without any sources I would have to say delete. If anyone has actually heard of this sport please help us here add something so we can verify it. I'd be happy to change my opinion if that were to happen. DrunkenSmurf 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment definitely passes WP:NFT, even if Rklawton doesn't know it .. but I also am unsure of how to get it past WP:V WilyD 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, I mean it sounds like a plausible sport akin to Kickball, but somebody needs to verify it and add some sources. Searching for "Soccer Baseball" really doesn't help all that much, there are just too many irrelevant results to wade through. DrunkenSmurf 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kickball - I'd say I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier, but the kickball article notes Canadians oft call kickball Soccer Baseball WilyD 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kickball as suggested by WilyD. The rest of the world raises both eyebrows Bwithh 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WilyD; otherwise weak delete. Google searching does indeed result in a lot of irrelevant results, but this hit suggests that the term is not entirely made-up - at least not in Saudi Arabia in 1963. Verifiable, maybe, but if notability is a criterion, then the article otherwise should be deleted. Agent 86 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WilyD. --MECU≈talk 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment According to the article this is not the same game as kickball. In Kickball the pitcher rolls the ball to the batter and you throw the ball at the guy to get him out, while in this game everything is done by kicking the ball. So a redirect would seem to not fit if indeed one believes that this form of the game does exist. On that note I promise never to discuss the rules on Kickball again unless my two year old niece asks me. DrunkenSmurf 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment read the Kickball article and talk up a few Canucks - you'll see the redirect is appropriate, even though it's not motivated by this article. WilyD 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Weak). but verify and establish notability. HomeTOWNboy 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to kickball. A redirect, alone, isn't approrpiate--as DrunkenSmurf comments, this describes a variant. --Karnesky 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but let's only merge the sourced parts. Um, that would be nothing. Rklawton 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brookdale Center[edit]

NN shopping center Valrith 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If all malls merit an article simply because they exist, then this has ceased to be indiscriminate. An article on a mall must contain information to make it encyclopedic. This is also not supposed to be a directory. Agent 86 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. --MECU≈talk 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears that it should be verifiable, and List of shopping malls in Minnesota is up for deletion on the rationale that there are articles for all of the malls listed on it, and the category should be used instead. If we delete this article, our coverage of shopping malls in Minnesota will be incomplete. JYolkowski // talk 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Put this in Wikitravel. How can it show the names for the four anchors and then say two are empty. One of those statements is not verfiable. Vegaswikian 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten to four[edit]

"Religion" of the week here for you folks. Prod and speedy removed previous. Article reads as complete nonsense, no notoritity at all. Wildthing61476 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the word you are looking for is 4:00 pm. Pascal.Tesson 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete because this article was written by User:10 2 4 yet the article states that "There is not much known about Ten to Four ...." If an editor is close to a subject and creates an article about it, he or she ought to know something about it. We've seen the "it's so mysterious that we don't know much about it" act in other articles, all of which have been deleted. As a second choice, strong delete for all delete reasons specified above. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Article now edited to (fraudulently, and without sources) claim that it's a major religion in Ireland. NawlinWiki 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no delete* As a resident of the republic of ireland i have seen first-hand this cult. This cult does exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.73.20 (talk • contribs)
  • The above author has only posted in the article and this AfD. Wildthing61476 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edenderry Primary School and Carrick Primary School[edit]

Disambig pages for primary schools. Primary schools are generally non-notable, and disambig pages for primary schools without articles most certainly shouldn't warrent an article Computerjoe's talk 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As a general rule, delete any and all DAB pages to articles that don't exist. I can't see any purpose there. Fan-1967 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disambiguation pages with nothing to disambiguate. I've seen a couple of these for surnames recently. Do we need to add something about useless disambigs to WP:BAI? GRBerry 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. -- GWO
  • Comment. This nomination is malformed.--Nicodemus75 08:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How? Computerjoe's talk 15:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools are notable. --ForbiddenWord 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if that were true, these aren't articles about schools. They are disambiguation pages where all the targets are redlinks, so there is nothing for them to disambiguate. This user clearly didn't look at the articles before opining, so should be totally disregarded. GRBerry 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's true that the article is a disambiguation page pointing to blank articles, it is my hope that this disambiguation page will encourage the required articles to be written. I did in fact look at the page, and for that reason my vote remains a keep. However, I do wish I had your excellent mind-reading skills, I imagine it would be a tremendous boon to editing Wikipedia. --ForbiddenWord 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful disambiguations which can be expanded. We are here to build an encyclopedia after all, if you wanted help with the red links Computerjoe, all you had to do was ask. You have my number, call any time.  ;-) Silensor 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apparently someone was murdered at the Carrick Primary School in Lurgan in 1975 [56] citing the Irish Republican Army as the organization responsible for planting a bomb on a school desk. If anyone has access to Lexis Nexis, it would be interesting to see what sort of coverage this received 30 years ago. Silensor 23:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These disambiguations are useful to expand from, and I see now that work has been made in that direction. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as besides being redlinks, they are links that would almost certainly not be kept should be be created, going by precedent. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This deletionist crusade needs to STOP, We are trying to build an enclyopedia of all human knowledge not obfuscate it. -- Librarianofages 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These useful disambiguation pages.--Nicodemus75 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, will be useful once articles are created (one already has been). Until then they are harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Here's a suggestion: how about you create the articles first, then create the DAB pages after there's something to DAB. And to those who act royally upset that someone nominated an article that's nothing but redlinks: WP:CHILL. There's never been any consistent consensus to keep primary schools in the first place. Fan-1967 12:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's useful to create the disambiguation pages ASAP to avoid having to do move pages around later. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Parham, we need to encourage as many school-related articles to be created as possible. It's basically one of the big draws of the Wikipedia project, and disambiguation pages just encourage more of them to be written. --ForbiddenWord 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To say that primary schools are non-notable is nonsense - if so articles about all other schools must similarly be non-notable. This is an encyclopedia for goodness sake - it should have every school with articles on them. I was developing a list of primary schools in Northern Ireland - anyone who has developed lists knows that it will not fully be populated with articles for some time, but is meant to encourage articles. It is the same with these disambig - to prove the point - with regard to Edenderry Primary School - someone added an article as a result - I rest my case (please`remove the deletion proposal from this and others - thank you). Ardfern 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Proposal for deletion is now moot. Bahn Mi 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful disambiguation pages. Piccadilly 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, user-friendly. Kappa 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Bay Riding Academy[edit]

Straight advertising/Spam. Fails WP:CORP Dipics 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 16:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Sorkin[edit]

This professor, though surely an exceptional academic, does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan.aggregate (talk • contribs)

  • Weak Keep 795 Ghits for the subject, most of which seem relevant. If some firm evidence of meeting WP:PROF were provided in the article, my "keep" would be stronger. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of importance. If more was given and wiki'ed, I would say keep, but as is, delete. --MECU≈talk 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Bugwit. Crabapplecove 03:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has several well-cited papers according to Google Scholar.[57]. up+l+and 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the leader of the causal set program , a possible route to quantizing gravity. Babar
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Flagg[edit]

Listed here for deprodding without comment. Pornstar of questionable notability - clearly fails WP:PORNBIO (though of course that's only a guideline, not a rock-solid policy) with only 20-something confirmed films to her name(s) and the rest of her work apparently uncredited or touted as amateur (pretty difficult to verify). "Marie Flagg" returns only 40 unique Google hits, none relevant at a glance, "Slyvie K" porn returns just four. A few statements seem hazy or hard to verify (e.g. "Marie Flagg may also be...", "it is rumored that..."). A shame because the article is reasonably well-written, but unless reliable sources for this biography piece can be added, it's a big problem. ~Matticus TC 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Almost certainly a hoax, possibly intended to disparage someone of this name. About 40 GHits for this name; none are remotely porn-related. Based on the claims of intenet notoriety in the article, that's impossible. Fan-1967 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know "Marie Flagg" personally. That is not her real name. It is a name she used for a short time in Canada in the early 1980's when she was actually involved in making a couple of pornographic movies. They were pretty badly filmed, one on one things she shot together with a professor of hers who was into that sort of thing. I dont know if I can use the word here - but the rest of the bullshit that whoever wrote here is just that - bullshit. I dont thnik Marie would be very pleased with having these things attributed to her. She has no problems with her past but this thing is almost all lies. Please delete ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.131.150 (talk • contribs)
 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 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Championship Wrestling[edit]

Non-notable "business" (appairently). Exclusivly created by one of the owners (User:King Richard). -Royalguard11Talk 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayo Nayuki[edit]

Fails the "more famous than an average university professor" test. IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1327710/) lists only one movie entry (Battle Royale 2). No articles link to this page, except list of Japanese actresses and a redirect page. Bueller 007 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus to delete. - Richardcavell 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ronto Group[edit]

Non-notable company, as far as I can tell. As per CSD-A7, it can be speedily deleted. EVula 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete advertisement. --MECU≈talk 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable real estate development company. Among the larger such companies in the US and among the largest in rapidly growing South Florida. Please do not speedy delete, at least let its notability be debated. Justinpwilsonadvocate 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So... debate it. As the creator of the article, you should be able to provide some evidence of notability. I'm fine with not summarily deleting the article if notability can be proven. I don't think it can, but I'd be perfectly happy to be wrong. Well, in this instance, that is. ;) EVula 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have added several references to the article that establish Ronto's regional notability....quite a bit of hits on google news (showing substantial recent media attention to their projects). If necessary I will head to the Lexis Nexis to find older references. Hope this helps. Justinpwilsonadvocate 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have certainly heard of this company...seems to get a lot of media attention down here as a major player in the southern florida development industry. plus has plenty of sources / evidence of notability. unclear at this point why it would make sense to delete this. Captaintruth 18:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has sources; when I nominated it, it did not.[58] It certainly doesn't qualify for speedy deletion now, and it has been expanded some, but it still needs a lot of work, and all of the actual sources come from a single site (naplesnews.com). EVula 16:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the dominant newspaper in an area is enough to establigh local /regional notability, and local / regional notability is sifficient for inclusion per wikipedia guidelines. Justinpwilsonadvocate 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Komonjo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page is a mere translation of an obscure Japanese term. No articles link to it. Bueller 007 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get 136,000 ghits, of which at least 90% are Chinese. The "English" word "komonjo" itself gets 800 hits. Bueller 007 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Critique[edit]

Non-notable group of artists. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 23:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary Xtreme Critique is notable to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Art Critic Mary Louise Schumacher Link to her Blog and a conversation between herself and hotcakes gallery owner Mike Bremner [59]

This week Friday MKE magazine in milwaukee is running an article on extreme critique

X crit Participant Evan Ross Murphy is on Wiki already [60] --Ice age jet set 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is good enough to meet Wikipedia standards of notability. Crabapplecove 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crabapplecove 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:BIO failing group. Oh, and the argument that this subject is notable because it is mentioned in another article doesn't help your credibility when you created both articles. --Kinu t/c 03:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A published article noting the positive impact of xtreme critique [61]--68.117.27.163 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Full Article [62][reply]

  • Comment I removed the link to the group's website from the AfD as it could be considered advertising here as well. Wildthing61476 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't selling anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoyu (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 July 2006

  • The issue isn't the notability of the group of artists, the issue is the event/performance itself which is what the article is actually about. The event has certainly been deemed notable by the press, gallery owners, and gallery-goers of Milwaukee a fact which is testified to by the above links.

Clearly there is enough interest in the event and it's role in re-invigorating gallery night [63] (an event which X-crit is not affiliated with in any way) that xtreme critique has become, dare I say it... notable enough to warrant the attention of Milwaukee's most major online and print media institutions.

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

The result was delete discounting new users, nn-group anyways. Jaranda wat's sup 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Coalition Forces of the Internets[edit]

Group receives only 3 Google hits, and their homepage isn't even listed on alexa. The article tries pretty hard to establish notability, otherwise I would've tagged it for speedy. tmopkisn tlka 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I guess that's up to the powers that be, I won't argue back or forth. If it's deleted however, I suppose there should also be a deletion for the redirect from [ACFI]. Notice, however, that when this is written, it is in fact listed on alexa from what I can see. :)
  • My bad, I meant that alexa held no data on the website, which would make it appear that it isn't at all notable. tmopkisn tlka 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... in case, say, the alleged ACFI did step ashore in the area Ladonia in some way, and it at least made local headlines, would that make the article worthy of existence, by the principle that it might not be interesting to everyone in the world, but to at least a number of people (Ladonia is a popular subject among artists not only in Sweden, and happenings involving it would create interest - same definately goes for stuff involving the Pirate Bay)? Bare also in mind that the concept is quite new. //Thaum
      • Well, I'd say it'd be notable if it made some local newspapers, and you could cite them in the article, but everyone's opinion of what is or isn't notable varies. It actually sounds quite interesting to me, but as of now there are only 3 places that even mention it online, and none that I've heard of before. tmopkisn tlka 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Pirate Bay you prolly heard about :) Not trying to cause a fuzz or anything, just arguing for my article. :)
  • Delete - About as nn as they come. Stev0 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" - its important to get an info who it is that threatens Ladonia! And Ladonia has a very well written article about who they are. You don't delete the entry of USA when on the entry of IRAN there is a paragraph that says USA is threatening Iran with war! (signed by an civilian happiely not affected of any of the Ladonian hostilites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.166.127 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 06:14:55
    • Above comment posted by IP who's only edit thusfar was to this page, just so we all know. tmopkisn tlka 08:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • does the fact that the IP is dynamic and that i'm not signing up made my voice/opinion less valueable? In fact I (the Individual User) have contributed on more then one page in the german wikipedia and on some pages in the english one.

      i had the impression that every voice/opinion has the same weight in a democratic medium like the wikipedia?! (just so we all know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.166.127 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 08:34:13

  • "Keep" - as a member of the ACFI (Yes, you can see my IP now, I know) - I would like to state that we are a _newly founded_ group and we are continuing our work against the people who threaten the Internets. We can of course not reach high marks in google in just a couple of days. Wikipedia was just fast to actually learn about us. We will stay around and do more work, so this article should be kept in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.20.230 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 09:03:14
  • Suggest an addition that this conflict might be concidered a pop-cultural one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaum1el (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 09:11:01
  • Delete The article does not comply with Wikipedia's high standards for quality. Additionally it is riddled with original research and/or is cited by unreliable sources. There is not enough useful or verified information to justify keeping this article. If someone is willing to do an extensive cleanup of the article, that would be great. Until then, it is best to delete the article as to avoid the spread of misinformation. --Epsilonsa 09:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I just pause you for a second here. Wikipedia's "High standard of quality" is about as solid as a dog turd in a washing machine. The Wiki is full of complete rubbish, implausible opinions based on speculation, and worst of all, utter lies generally being called direct facts by nitwits who know nothing. The Wiki has been ridiculed from lands a far for having articles pertaining to many many subjects that are just downright wrong, and even one of the top blokes originally part of the creation of the Wiki has admitted it has serious flaws as far as factual truth go. I decided to see if I could get away with writting rubbish, so I edited an article on here to prove a point back in May, with complete gibberish cooked up in one minute, and it has yet to be removed. In fact I expect some poor bastard probably uses the information on a daily basis to prove his or her own points, and little do they know it is made up by me. Just think, if I can do it, millions of others can. And have. So, before you go crapping out this rubbish about this article not being in keeping with the Wiki's high quality standards, might I suggest you take a look at every other page on the Wiki, because chances are 9 times out fo 10 if you knew what the hell you were going on about you'd realise this entire site is a complete farce. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.168.197 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 10:33:04
      • Comment If this isn't an argument for deletion, I don't know what is. Stev0 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must actually give an opinion here, even if I orginitaed this article and all flaws in it should be mine (no contribs have been made to it as of yet): So Wiki is ridiculed for lack of accuracy and correctness and so on. No matter if this is true or not, the best way to counter such things, is to clean up the bad seeds and water the good ones, wouldn't you agree? If this is a completey non-sensical article, as some seem to believe, and if it does not reach up to the policies of Wiki, no matter what individuals think of these policies, this should be adhered to, and this everyone making a login on wiki agreed to comply to from the get-go. Better to improve a bad article, than to maintain it in a sad shape just to protest the site's policies if they are not to one's satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaum1el (talk • contribs)
    • I suppose you did not detect the irony of me giving a well tailored reason for deleting this ridiculously low quality article. I know I laughed when I wrote it. I either overestimated your sense of humor or overestimated the amount of humor others would find in my response. In either case, the argument is as valid as it is funny (not saying much, apparently), and your article has got to be deleted. Tough break, son. Maybe try not to berate the merits of your own article next time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilonsa (talk • contribs) ¨
      • Think you got something wrong here. I created the article, and if people seriously want to take it away, please do. I will hardly be upset about the thing, as I have not been upset about someone giving a motivation for wanting the deletion, humorous or not. If it has to go it has to go. However, you must have confused me with the unsigned long argument upstairs. As you might notice I argued against the rant about the Wiki policies on deletion, claiming that if it doesn't meet the Wiki standards it must of course go. ;)--Thaum1el 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, I did get something wrong. Point taken. --Epsilonsa 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Delete it twice just to make sure it stays dead. And don't forget to delete the ACFI redirect page too. wikipediatrix 14:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" - I say we definitely keep this page, I know the organization is new - but that does not mean that they cannot deserve a page on wikipedia. People need to know what is happening on the internet - and in Sweden! --Mailerdaemon 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep it!" a new iternet fenomena that may grow wild and more crazy! give the people time ot add more reliable info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpunk666 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyodatsu jotai[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Useless translation of Japanese term. Has been around for almost a year, but no articles link to it. Bueller 007 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Over-specific, too; while the term is sometimes (~800 ghits) used to describe the state of mind in post-war Japan, it's a generic term for a state of lethargy, not a WW2-specific one. — Haeleth Talk 09:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (temporarily logged out at the time of posting)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Wickning1 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Rea[edit]

NN bio/vanity page - appears to fail WP:BIO Valrith 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not noteable. --MECU≈talk 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Must... Resist... Urge... To... Sarcastically... Attack... Creator/Subject... - Richfife 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing indicating that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off the boat[edit]

Fresh Off the Plane which redirects also for same reasons. Unencyclopedic. Vandal page, numerous attacks on races, cultures, etc. Failed Speedy Delete attempt. MECU≈talk 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Real cultural phenomenon. The article brings together various aspects of this phenomenon from different parts of the world. May need further work but certainly should not be deleted. --Sumple (Talk) 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Unencyclopedic" reason too vague. The page is not inherently an attack, and it's a real phenomenon. Vandalism not a reason to delete. --ColourBurst 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sumple and ColourBurst. The phrase can be used as derogatory but also a term of pride, see the novel 'Fresh off the Boat'. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, see nigger. The page seems to have lapsed into heavy OR issues since I last checked it, so it is in need of some heavy-duty cleanup, but the core concept (and the lead paragraph itself) is verifiable so it should be kept. hateless 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-used slang term. Just being a likely site for vandalism isn't a reason to delete. Ronnotel 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common slang in many situations. As bad as the word can be thought of, Wikipedia is not here to try to put out a "cleaned-up" or censored world forward -- its here to put out the truth. P-unit 06:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. The idea that language difficulties affect only non-Anglophones coming to Anglophone countries, and not the other way around, is particularly stupid. -- GWO
  • Keep. Used to be a good article and could be again with a lot of cleanup. Zerbey 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm in the process of cleaning up the article, slowly removing the WP:OR issues and getting more scholarly works into the references. hateless 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EComXpo[edit]

Obvious advertising, based on the tone of the article, and possibly Crystal balling. Prod removed by author. tmopkisn tlka 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If everytime 7000 people get together was noteable...maybe. --MECU≈talk 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - there won't be 7000 people getting together; this is a virtual exhibition! It might be worth an article afterwards if it turns out to be the first or biggest or whatever of its kind. Unencyclopaedic article content. BlueValour 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Julie Gentry, contested keep for the other two. Richardcavell 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Gentry[edit]

This person appeared on one season of a reality television show, and did nothing else. This is not notable, and in particular, fails WP:BIO. NatusRoma | Talk 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For similar reasons, I am bundling the following pages with this nomination:
  • Keep Kyle and delete the other two. Acting in a show is notable, appearing in a reality show is not, unless you do something notable on the show or achieve media coverage on your own. Articles assert neither. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: Keep Kyle and delete the other two. Kyle Brandt is a regular on Days of Our Lives. Doc502 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lindsay. She also spent over a year as a morning-drive DJ on Q100 in Atlanta -- on a show that had pretty good Arbitron ratings, to boot. My understanding is that she still works in broadcast media (see the Q100 article). GGreeneVa 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WWWQ (FM), Brien is "[c]urrently in Tampa working in television". That doesn't mean that she's actually on television, or doing anything else notable. I would also argue that a one-year stint as a morning-drive DJ doesn't make a person notable, unless such a person becomes particularly famous or controversial in that role. NatusRoma | Talk 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point -- so I looked around and found that she does, in fact, have a show. Link: http://www.thespotonline.tv/.
  • I have to disagree with this decision. Julie (Oliver) Gentry was one of the most important people to appear on Real World---they consider her the "touchstone" character and one of the most relatable. She also appeared in a few things, including fellow roommate/castmate Norman Korpi's The Wedding Video in 2000. She may not be a star like Jacinda Barrett, but she's made a name for herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.3.67 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you were coming from -- it looks like the Lindsey Brien and WWWQ articles both need edits to reflect new information. If the premise that she hadn't done anything after RW had been true, I'd probably say delete the article as well. --GGreeneVa 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Allen (baseball)[edit]

This article is being nominated for deletion because of its lack of info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay4president (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 13:21Z

Mini Mammoth[edit]

Delete. Joke article about an imaginary animal dreamt up by a couple of DJs. Google search brings up 251 discrete results, the first page of which has nothing to do with the Mini Mammoth of the article. Claims that there are "expressions of interest from the scientific and paleontology community" and that Paris Hilton thinks it's hot. According to the Jay and the Doctor page, the article has been deleted before. ... discospinster talk 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also As useful as a Mini Mammoth. Uncle G 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also all of the pictures that have been mocked up for the purpose of this article: Image:McMiniMammoth.jpg, Image:Wtfwinkingminimammoth.gif, Image:Wtfblinkingminimammoth.gif, Image:IMammothnano.jpg, Image:Miniass.jpg, Image:MiniMSitedAt SB Brisbane.jpg, and Image:Walking a mini mammoth.jpg Uncle G 09:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the current version may have been modified severely - this is the version before I removed most of the obviously fake material.'ViridaeTalk' 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just semi-protected this AFD, as it was getting silly. Proto::type 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it i have a friend whos friend has a mini mammoth on their desk top at Telstra. Her friend reckons telstra paid for the research because mini mammoths are great at installing phones.
  • Keep for a few days. I don't believe this article was used for advertising, It has come about though a discussion on a morning breakfast show, people have picked up the idea and are having fun with the concept. While I understand that the academic value of the content is low, it is an interesting case study on the creation of an "in joke". Wikipedia contains much esoteric information, and I think that as long as this article is not harming wikipedia as a whole, it should be left.

    I also believe that this has spread the influence of wikipedia, as more people discover wikipedia for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netbogan (talk • contribs)

  • Keep it Who are you to say that jay and the doctor's conceptual minimammoth idea is not suitable for an article? It is a concept for an idea, and im sure if minimammoths were created one day, that i would like to have one wandering around my place. Also, it is not a publicity stunt because triple j is not a commercial radio station. thats my two cents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.177.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for a few weeks I concur. Many themes and ideas from radio shows have long-standing Wikipedia pages. Including many from the Jay and the Doctor show (check the Jay and the Doctor Wiki pages for examples). Triple J is an Australian government-owned radio station, they don't have advertisements, so no commercial advangage can be gained from the page. Rather, their audience will be exposed to the world of Wikipedia. If anything, perhaps the link to the merchandising site, not related to Triple J but commercial nonetheless, could be pulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.145 (talk • contribs)
  • I Concur In regards to the above comments relating to the keeping of the mini mammoth wiki page I add the following- Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)|--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)|contribs]]) [reply]
  • Speedy G4 and protect as repost. --Kinu t/c 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since G4 doesn't apply, I move for a delete the old-fashioned way, as WP:NOT for joke articles. Yes, it can contain articles about notable jokes, but the astroturfing of the jokes themselves is not a suitable use of standalone encyclopedic articles. --Kinu t/c 01:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Never knew a lil light hearted humour was so offensive to some...eg disco sphincter, oops, sorry, dint i say that right?
— Note: Fofuxake (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions and might be a single purpose account --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I've already marked the article for deletion and it WAS deleted at least 2 times. Oh and who invited the sockpuppets? Wildthing61476 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Which criteria for speedy deletion or criteria for deletion has this article filled to be classified for deletion and speedy deletion so many times, please tell me? or are you (yes im pointing to you Wildthang!) ) just being a noodle and spoiling the only chance i might have of spreading the word about the possible existance of the mini mammoth or getting one for my lounge room?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.177.6 (talk • contribs) .
  • This article has not been through AFD before, and no speedy deletion criterion applies to the article. Uncle G 00:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it is a clear abuse of Wikipedia to promote a silly joke on a radio show, and original research. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting jokes. Delete. Uncle G 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is an entry for Space_Goat - I guess the difference is that is a serial whereas the Mini Mammoth is a topic of discussion. Would you be happier if that article made it clear that is just a topic of discussion, or if the article was transformed to be more of a discussion of the joke that includes some information on the joke itself? If it doesn't get any more airplay in a couple of weeks, I won't be sad to say it go - but I'm sure space goat had it's critics when it was starting out, so why not what and see? DaveAU 01:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We'd be happier if you based your contributions to Wikipedia on cited sources, adhered to our policies of Wikipedia:No original research, and did not attempt to introduce nihilartikels here at the behests of radio show DJs. Uncle G 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since I haven't added or edited any articles that seems a little hostile, especially the use of "we" and "our" from an admin. Space Goat only got marked as unreferenced after I mentioned it, so at the time I made it my comment was made from a wikipedia article that didn't have a problem. And as we've discussed elsewhere, it's as well or poorly referenced as The Goons, but that article hasn't been marked as unreferenced. I was just trying to have a discussion, maybe get to understand the wikipedia process a little. I now feel very unwelcome here.DaveAU 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administrators reading this might like to consider speedy deletion criterion #G3. Uncle G 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 217.146.110.206 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few weeks The origin and fictional nature of the concept is stated at the outset. The article could do with a good edit, but it is clear that the discussion of the concept is satirical and comic. I refer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article for an example of a comic concept that has taken on a life of its own. As such, both concepts are appropriate subjects for Wikipedia. However if the idea peters out in a week or two, it would be appropriate to delete the article. Papertiger96 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is no different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article which has been around for a while, it is not a commercial venture and does not qualify as vandalism either.130.95.48.22 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few weeks I've added it to the category Fictional species - if the non-existence of the animal is grounds for deletion you need to take out the whole category. There are many species from books and video games in there - the radio is just as valid a form of media, especially now podcasts exist making the medium potentially as persistent as books or video games. It might be more appropriate for placement on uncylcopedia, but as Papertiger said, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets a page, the Mini Mammoth has the right to a page. As an observation the mention on JJJ increases the exposure of wikipedia to the general public, and the multiple deletes and repostings would make wikipedia sound fairly unprofessional and disorganised to people hearing about it for the first time. I'll be watching the process carefully. Edit: used 3 tildes rather than 4 - oops. DaveAU 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm now undecided - Kinu made the good point that the article is astroturfing the joke. I don't have a strong preference either way - I've just been trying to point out pertinent things like the commercial side of it being a hijack, the origin being a news article and existence of other articles on fictional animals. Even if it's just a running joke, there's a discussion of the use of 'Hot grits' as a running joke in the slashdot article. But the astroturfing is a grave concern. And I don't think they're sock puppets coming in - they're probably listeners who only heard about wikipedia this morning - they'll also be aware if people are recommending deletion without having the facts... I won't lose any sleep if it's deleted immediately for astroturfing or if it hangs around to see if it lasts. Actually, if it can be called astroturfing it probably falls short of the original research criteria... DaveAU 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Discospinster has not provided good reasons for its deletion. It is encyclopediac as are various other fictional species within Australian culture. Discospinster incorrectly labelled the article a number of times (his behaviour stunk of nothing but vandalism and trolling) and now he's continuing. I vote for keeping the article and if Discospinster continues his behaviour (as he has done on a number of articles (see his talk page), he should be reprimanded.Pontifexmaximus 01:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Really now. Is this one of those practical jokes that DJs like to pull, like calling up the Queen and pretending to be Jean Chretien? ... discospinster talk 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No. It's a riff on a news item that took on a life of it's own. Use google news, look for "mammoth", you'll see where it came from. I'm a little worried that you have marked it for deletion without understanding it's origin. DaveAU 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Uncle G. --JeremyA 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, this is a spoof article, with a poor standard of grammar, on an ephemeral topic. Ordinary Person 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Danny Lilithborne 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete per Danny Lilithborne. Wikipedia would be useless if it had to follow the whim of all radio DJs and their "dittoheads". Lazybum 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, manufactured attempt at creating some buzz and selling some cafepress items. Good luck with sweeping up the socks. Kuru talk 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe cafepress link is actually a hijack of the page/idea. The radio program this stems from is on a non-commercial radio station, so selling isn't the motivation. DaveAU
  • Delete as original research. As has been pointed out, this does not qualify for speedy deletion - mholland 02:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OI as stated before, J&theDR have no need to create a buzz, they are from a non-commercial, government funded radio station. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.177.6 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep it Firstly, as has already been stated, there does not appear to yet be a satisfactory reason for the entire deletion of the Mini Mammoth article. The article could be perhaps modified to meet general Wikipedia standards. NetBogan makes a few pertinent points, including the potential for such an article to increase the audience and scope of the Wikipedia project. This is important, and allows the number of sources of information for Wikipedia articles to increase. I would like to further express the potential for this to be "an interesting case study on the creation of an 'in joke'" and a way to explore the potential for fictitious characters to evolve and become 'real' with continuing discussion. As a biological scientist, I would also like to point out that there is a basis to state that scientific research is never conclusive - according to the null hypothesis method, a scientist, in research, should essentially set out to disprove a theory - so that, in reality, science never really proves anything. So, there is really no way to prove that the Mini Mammoth does not already exist or, furthermore, that it will not exist in the future. Finally, why is this page being classed as original research? I do not find there to be anything that may be considered as scientific research within the Mini Mammoth entry. In addition, the idea is not entirely original, as DaveAU points out - the idea of the Mini Mammoth evolved from a current news item. --Bauhinia 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Not only is it original research, but once you get rid of all the unverifiable cruft (e.g. "Their legs also fetch a high price as they are often used for drink umbrella stands."), there is really nothing to the article. -Seidenstud 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep We need more mini mammoths! 130.102.0.176 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! This article seems to be shameless self promotion for the Jay and the Dr. show on Triple J, which, lets face it, isnt even that great anyway. Shame, boys, shame.
  • Strong Delete. There is no possible way this subject is notable, and most of the people urging "keep" here do not seem to understand Wikipedia standards regarding WP:OR, and have offered no valid Wikipolicy-based reasons for their position. Crabapplecove 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not?Oh come on. Wikipedia is destroying the legitimacy of online media and information resources anyway….let the article live. At least this is a legit possibility. There’s a lot of stuff on this site that doesn’t deserve its own info page….Paris Hilton anyone? At least on this page she’s entertainining. --Minimammoth 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, champ. It's a discussion. Pontifexmaximus 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not" isn't a valid discussion response, Perry Mason. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, based on a news item or not (see definition of original research: WP:NOR). Also, while Triple J / Jay and the Dr aren't commercially motivated, they do appear to be quite desperate for entertaining content. Stick to your strong points gentlemen, music, not humour. As to promoting Wikipedia, is that a legitimate reason to keep an article? Many other reasons are given as to why this is against Wikipedia policy. Why make an exception? To the poster above, keeping this sort of conent is what destroys Wikipedia's "legitimacy". 61.29.52.38 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this is merely the product of hype, then in a few days it will be gone and nobody will care if you delete it. The article is generating a great deal of traffic and edits. Therefore, there is great interest in the topic and its being recorded for Wikipedia. I'm amazed at the people who've said 'Delete' who haven't actually provided good reasons for its deletion. At the moment, the article is qualitatively better than about 60% of Wikipedia articles. What is the difference between this and an article on a fictional species in Star Trek? This article even has links to proper news sources. Pontifexmaximus 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the Minimammoth and Star Trek is that literally billions of people have heard of Star Trek, and the Minimammoth isn't famous at all. Crabapplecove 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a friendly reminder, you only need to vote once, so any other remarks you make should be seen as comments. With THAT being said....Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball, if this term/idea dies out in the next few days or weeks, we'll have to go through this process AGAIN to have the article removed. My point is this, remove the article for now, and IF this continues to be a notable fad, then by all means restore the article. A new running joke on a radio show does not warrant enough for an article on Wikipedia, but as I said if this has any staying power, by all means replace the article. Wildthing61476 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly sorry, Wildthing, but this is not a vote. It is a discussion. The first bold text allows us to see the general context of the comment. Pontifexmaximus 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In neither of the two instances in which you noted this fact did anyone refer to the discussion as a "vote." In this context, the term "vote" refers not to majority/plurality voting, but to "expressing one's preference for a proposed resolution of an issue." —David Levy 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, unverifiable, NN to anyone outside of the radio show's audience, WP:NOT a cystal ball, need I go on? Possibly merge into WP:BJAODN. --Daduzi talk 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as radio hoax. Unverifiable as a true topic, and if it's a recreation of a deleted page, then, well, smite it mightily. Tony Fox (speak) 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This sort of junk seriously devalues Wikipedia. Krisjohn 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, or merge it. Theres alot of content on wikipedia that has no factual base, so why should this article be treated any different, but if it must go why not move the content to the jay and the doctor article areadly present on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfox404 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 July 2006

  • Keep, but make legitimate: The original article was fine, clearly pointing out that it was a concept created by radio DJs. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with an entry such as this. However, the addition of content referring to the Mini Mammoth as a real animal should not be encouraged. There is nothing fundamentally different between this article and such articles as the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. SeanR 05:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Concepts need definitions too, even if it is on the humerous side. Its a good hoax. Thers's just no more good mythical creatures created these days. I'm sure wiki has definitions for minotaurs and griffins, a geneticly engineered miniture mammoth is far more plausible. Atleast leave it up for a few weeks.
  • Comment: I, too, am sure wiki has definitions for minotaurs and griffins, but they don't contain false statements such as "Griffins are highly valued in Lithuania for their vanadium content." Either delete the article or alter it so that it is a factual article about a wacky concept dreamed up by a couple of DJs.Ordinary Person 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is no a repository for jokes/hoaxes. ViridaeTalk 05:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per many of the above. This is an obvious joke and hoax and not terribly notable. I hope the closing admin takes a very critical look at those calling for keep. Especially those calling for keep "for a few weeks". Very little good prescence [64]. Its not all relevant hits either.--Crossmr 05:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per the many valid arguments above. Please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I doubt even Uncyclopedia would accept this. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day nor a bunch of DJs by the way. Unless it becomes as big a cultural in joke in Australia as the Drop bear, then mini mammoth has no place here. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Em-jay-es 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously most of the info is a hoax (and so unverifiable). And I don't think the idea is notable enough to keep just for the discussion of the idea by the two guys. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exterminate. Wikipedia is not for things made up on a radio talk show one day. — QuantumEleven 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, this fictional animal is non-notable. However, if the supporters of this article want it kept, it would help to get rid of all the obvious hoax material in the article as soon as possible and just try to use the article to show that the mini mammoth is a famous joke from a radio show. Some editors might reconsider their votes in that case. --Metropolitan90 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried to do that - twice. Both times it has been reverted. I give up, don't want an edit war and I'm generally 2RR. ViridaeTalk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:ENC. Take it to the blogs. MarkBuckles 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Becoming a much talked about topic in workplaces around Australia, generating interest in the behaviour of the Korean scientist, mammoths in general and the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.16.124 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete, per nom. --Ragib 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. And take As useful as a Mini Mammoth with it. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not keep it for a little longer?
  1. What harm can it do?
  2. It may even generate the debate on cloning.... Again.... Lauren 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the answer to your question is "Because it egregiously violates Wikipedia's policies in several ways." Is that a good enough reason for you? Ordinary Person 07:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Netsnipe, and somebody clean out the sock drawer. GassyGuy 07:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of every stupid thing a DJ said. The RAID array isn't big enough, for a start. -- GWO
  • Delete: Once upon a time Wikipedia was full of useful information, before companies and individuals decided to use it for viral marketing and self-promotion. Just like their extremely tedious radio show (wow, another song by the Herd), this article is nothing but an embarassment.
  • Delete, haha, would've been slightly amusing if today was April 1. It isn't April 1. Thuresson 08:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A legitimate version can be created if and when the joke becomes sufficiently notable. —David Levy 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We Should Keep This On Because it's heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeps funny! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.194.42 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete both, this has gone on long enough. Weregerbil 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible, WP is not a promotional tool for radio show jokes. Fram 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or alternatively move to WP:BJAODN or Uncyclopedia though that is probably out of the question due to licensing). This is no doubt a hoax. Cedars 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep come on! its cool! jay and the doctor are very funny and if you were to delete THIS you would have to delete all the fictional articles. people wouldnt be happy about that!
  • a belief site Don't delete this site because there is a number of the comunity who actually believes this article, and it would be a dissapointment to those people if something they believed and trusted in was gone. This is NOT an advertising site.It also gives a new light and hope on cloning. Who knows? This may lead up to portable cloning machines. -- Frank mershall 10:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frank mershall (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions to Wikipedia --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it! don't delete it! you guys are all to uptight! let go once in a while. im still in school, and all the people in my class know about the mini mammoth. its a bit of comic relief, something to get away form reality. i say good on jay and the doctor for doing something that shows their keen imagination, and knack for making people laugh. its a bit of harmless fun. i bet if it was on channel 9 news you would keep it no doubt! the radio(and most definately triple j) is just another respectable form of media, so keep it, not because it may or may not be true, but because it makes peolpe HAPPY! or is that word too hard to understand? User:Family account 10:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)laretta den[reply]
Family account (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions to Wikipedia --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not your personal blog or personal webspace. It's an encyclopedia and we have standards to uphold and in this case: notability criteria and Wikipedia:Verifiability. What you newcomers have to understand is that those of us on the AFD team will not be persuaded by appeals to our sense of fun/humour or blatant sockpuppetry like we are seeing now. Anyone who has only created a new account in the last few days or has not made any significant contributions to other articles WILL BE IGNORED in this discussion. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less boring than loads of stuff about Star Wars, pokemon, etc. Still, the latter demonstrably is the subject of mass attention [gods know why]; this is not. Therefore, delete. -- Hoary 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Proto::type 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Funny DJs, great music but a silly elephant - Peripitus (Talk) 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:CSD#G1, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, but Wikipedia is not a place for joke articles, or patent nonsense as this article clearly is. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please familarize yourself with what patent nonsense actually is, and please do not abuse that speedy deletion criterion. An article is not patent nonsense if it is comprehensible. Uncle G 13:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hoaxity hoax of a hoax article. The constant stream of anons and new users certainly isn't helping. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euthanize. Were this presented as a factual article on why the creation of this "animal" is notable, then it could survive; as it is, this article serves only as vanity and promotion for the radio show and its hosts. I very nearly speedied it as a recreated speedy until I came here and saw all the sockp— er, sorry, editors recommending a (brief) keep for no apparent reason. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, target for vandalism. NawlinWiki 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Most of the article is obviously hoax information added to make the joke continue. If -- but not until -- this joke gains serious traction (much like the FSM) will it be appropriate to have an artcle on it, and only if it makes it clear that this is a joke. Until then, this is crystal-ball-ism. eaolson 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete Sigh. Ian¹³/t 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purported subject of the article is plainly not encyclopedic and any treatment of this topic, even as a "phenomenon" (which it only would be in the most generous sense) would currently require original research. Perhaps, if the station responsible has an article, a brief mention of this event could be placed there. The article, and this debate, may qualify for WP:BJAODN, but I don't really know as I don't hang out there. --Dystopos 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is bringing people to Wikipedia for the first time. I had not edited an article on Wikipedia before this.Dr Jason Jason
(I moved this from the talk page, where it would probably have been missed.) eaolson 19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia serves itself by building a useful reference, not by staging publicity stunts that undermine the quality of that work. --Dystopos 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, copying it off the talk page beats the purpose of thwarting new sock accounts via semi-protection. The vote from Jason is obviously a sock vote, considering his "first edit" in wikipedia. and lack of other activities. --Ragib 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Sorry, I didn't notice the semi protection at the time; I thought it was just from a newbie editor who didn't know where to properly comment. Just because the Dr Jason Jason is continuing this joke article that is a waste of everyone's time doesn't necessarly mean he is a sock puppet for another user. I'm trying to assume good faith. It's becoming difficult, but I'm trying. Can't we just delete this annoying article, already? eaolson 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to assume bad faith, but does anyone else think it's odd how many people want to "keep it for a little longer"? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Since it's fairly obvious the majority simply don't like the article, I suggest a compromise of merging it with Jay and the Doctor. From there it can be pared-down to appropriate size by the contributors. It would be a shame for the material to be deleted out of a lack of humour, as many wiki pages exist for other made-up creatures. Jr78 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are documented made-up creatures, that one can find discussed in books and journal articles. This made-up creature is not. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. Uncle G 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if a Wikipedia entry is created more or less directly from a culture with a strong oral tradition, would that be considered invalid due to lack of documentation? Yes, I'm aware it's not exactly the same thing, but I would appreciate some clarification on this. Next, if the Mini Mammoth becomes a "cultural phenomenon" in the next couple of weeks, appearing in magazines and such, would the page be allowed to be un-deleted? Culture is fluid, and moves quickly in modern society. Also, as an aside, Wikipedia's "Feature Article" for today is Bulbasaur. Oh ya, that's some SERIOUS subject matter right there.Jr78 01:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bulbasaur is part of a MAJOR franchise for one. This again is a joke from a radio show. I can think of NUMEROUS gags from radios shows that don't have articles, why should this one. As to your other point, I agree if this fad takes off, then yes undelete, but honestly i see this dying off in a number of days. Wildthing61476 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, if this phenomenon became a cultural phenomenon, I would support the article's existence. But WP is not a crystal ball. We can not have articles written on the assumption that their subject will become such a cultural phenomenon. Phenomenon first, article second. eaolson 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • invalid due to lack of documentation? — Yes, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Writing about something that is part of an oral tradition is the creation of primary source material. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The route to having an article is for subject matter to be the subject of articles outside of Wikipedia first. Many fictional creatures have been the subjects of numerous books, articles, documentaries, and so forth over the years. That is the point at which they have become a documented cultural phenomenon. This fictional creature isn't even documented by its own inventors. Uncle G 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if you still don't understand the point, go and look at Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references. Uncle G 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP if pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_Bear that are still in the wiki why? can we keep this and file it under radio jokes under triplej and the jay and the doctor show i think wikipedia should wiki jokes becasue in 50 years time people can look back and see what the humor was like in 2006 becasue humor is part of our history aswell, but i do agree this needs to be filed in a better place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthrox (talk • contribs)
    • User's 2nd (out of 2) edit. --Ragib 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you read the Drop Bear article, you can see that the creature has been mentioned in a 1988 books by Terry Pratchett (a famous writer), a commercial, and has been the namesake for a band in the early '80s. None of this can be said for the "Mini Mammoth". Drop Bears are notable. Mini Mammoths are not. Your "logic" seems to be: The Drop Bear is a fictional Australian creature; so is the Mini Mammoth. The Drop Bear has a Wikipedia article; so should the Mini Mammoth. Doesn't work. ... discospinster talk 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: this is cruft, a soapbox, and communicating with wikipedia. its also trash --Musaabdulrashid 01:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the article the remove all of the unverifiable crap from it. For now, it is a somewhat useful article but it stills isn't a notable cultural phenomena. Now if only we can keep the vandals at bay. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This paragraph "The idea has gained large support from the show's listeners, many of whom have contributed to this entry. It should be understood that most if not all of the following is an attempt to answer Jay and the Doctor's question, and should be understood as satire and not a malicious hoax." Shouldn't even be there. The last part should also be removed with no citation if you want to call it reasonably cleaned up.--Crossmr 03:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, though perhaps redirecting to Jay and the Doctor to discourage recreation wouldn't be a bad idea.--Chaser T 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can I second Chaser's idea above? Megamanic 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in its unedited form. What's everyone getting so upset about? As long as it has the "Hoax" tag at the top, I see no problem with the article - it attracts new contributors and viewers. It's just a joke anway, and is hurting no one. Is anyone likely to stumble on the article and mistakenly think its factual? No. Particluarly with the hoax tag. I care as much about factual content and citing sources in wikipedia as any editor, but this is not the place to be worried about such things. I'm not game to revert TheFarix's changes myself, but I would support anyone who did. --BrettRob 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I've attempted to make this a semi-legitimate article as possible under the circumstances, which may give it a very slight chance to survive an AfD. Also, do read the following policies that his article runs afoul of, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and the guideline WP:HOAX which states that content that is a hoax is vandalism and must be removed. Having the hoax tag applied does on make the article "all right". --TheFarix (Talk) 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I'm going to contradict myself here - I don't actually think this article is a hoax, because it is not a genuine attempt to deceive people. It's just a joke. It's obviously a joke. Perhaps if we had a tag that said: "This article is a JOKE. It should not be taken seriously in any way." this might solve the problem - everyone would be happy. Joke articles should not be subject to the same standards of vandalism as other pages. In fact, if they attract vandals away from the serious pages, all the better. Think of it like a graffiti wall. Just a thought. I realise I'm fighting an uphill battle here. --BrettRob 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We already have a place for that. Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense eaolson 04:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Editors frown on deliberate attempts to get into BJAODN. Uncle G 09:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keeping jokes on Wikipedia doesn't do much for our image and credibility. It's not harmless as some of the WP:SPAs have been arguing, but it'd be opening the floodgates if we start keeping ANY article that has no other purpose but to humour people. Sorry, but this isn't Uncyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to have not grasped the goal of this project. It is to write an encyclopaedia, not to write a joke book. There are projects whose goals are to collect joke articles. Wikipedia is not one of them. If you want to write joke articles, please use one of the projects whose goals align with yours. Uncle G 09:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day++ --Richmeister 07:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it gets notable, then you can write a genuine article. Which will probably be more than just a silly joke from JJJ (not that there's anything wrong with that)--ZayZayEM 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, for a while I was listening to this play out on TripleJ yesterday, and it was clear that the joke was not the hoax itself, but the fact that the wikipedia could apparently be manipulated so easily, and still appear to be a 'legitimate source' to the uninformed. As such, it probably belongs in something like Encyclopedia Damatica rather than the Wikipedia. I was unable to hear what the comments were this morning, however I think a speedy deletion would just confirm that the joke worked. Keeping it as is (for a while) shows that while spurious material can turn up in the wikipedia, there is also a review process at work as well - User:LauraSeabrook 8:34pm 28 July 2006 (GMT+11)
    • Wait, I'm really not getting the logic here. Keeping a non-notable, unverifiable joke article would prove that Wikipedia has a working review process while deleting it wouldn't. How does that work? --Daduzi talk 11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was wondering that myself. ViridaeTalk 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1 hour after the article was created, it was tagged with "Prod". Less than 1 1/2 hour after it was created, it was marked as AfD [65]. How an article which states that it is "being considered for deletion" can fool an uninformed into thinking it is a "legitimate souce" is beyond me. The "joke" did not work and is gone beyond lame a long time ago. Fram 11:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavallaro[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, appears to be vanity VoiceOfReason 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26&oldid=1081095864"