Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

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. Kimchi.sg 02:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerhouse entertainment[edit]

Nonnotable at best, hoax at worst. Also listing Cornerhouse News and Executive Jones. NawlinWiki 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable -- Whpq 15:07, 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 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The website doesn't seem to garner much "popular" hits, and the writing sure looks like buddycruft and in-jokes. Geogre 02:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V. Even if it's real, it's a non-notable commercial venture that fails WP:CORP. --Satori Son 02:34, 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 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Hall[edit]

NN architect added in serial with many other architects which were deleted via db-bio. His claim to membership, I suppose, is his sitting on the RSUA council, and many others with the same claim were speedied. A google test of "Alastair hall" and Architect returns 82 results. ForbiddenWord 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability established. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete, notability is established by having won a 2006 RIBA design award (link added in article), being the only NI architecture practice to achieve this. Furthermore, the article is a stub, and requires expansion rather than deletion. However, as the subject is a young man, it is difficult to expand the article significantly. The article provides a similar level of detail to any of those on currently-practising architects in the UK or Ireland. The question is, does this architect fail to warrant such an article? My feeling is that he does, as his firm is incresingly coming to dominate NI architectural design. For the record, I am not the subject, nor do I work for his firm, nor am I connected to architectural practice in Northern Ireland. Adam bones 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Adam bones[reply]
    Comment: While he may indeed have won that award, I can see no evidence on that site that leads me to believe that that makes him either notable within the architecture world or meeting the Wikipedia notability standards. --ForbiddenWord 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It makes him one of only 62 people on earth to have won such an award this year. Apart from that, the notability guideline requires one to speculate as to whether the architect will become "part of the enduring historical record". I am aware that the subject is preparing a book for publication (not verifiable, my deepest apologies), but apart from that, he is the most likely current, practising NI architect to contribute to that record. Adam bones 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Adam bones[reply]
    Comment:Scarcity does not imply notability. I may be the only person on the earth with a certain name, but that does not make me notable for having that name. Additionally, the award having been given to his organization or cooperation-company with another architect, if the award does indeed imply notability (and I by no means am claiming that it does), would mean the company might have a claim to notability. And as has been demonstrated with the Cue Ball group or other business organizations deleted on grounds of a shaky claim to notability, notability within a notable organization is not a claim to notability. If Google returned more than 82 results on this architect, I would be more at-ease with the reasons for keeping this article. --ForbiddenWord 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: [[1]] is a precedent for just such an example as listed by yourself. And, as a point of pedantry, Google returned 93 results when I searched. I am not implying that scarcity confers notability. I am trying to imply that, if the world's foremost professional body for architects considers this architect/practice worthy of an award, it is a point of notability. The award confers notability; the scarcity of the awards shows the calibre of building. For an architect to win such an award is an achievement; for him to be under 40 is unusual; for the same to be practising in Northern Ireland is unheard of. There is no doubt that, in the context of architecture in Northern Ireland, in 2006, this is a notable individual: he is a writer, editor, award-winning architect and policymaker for the professional body. This may not make him a global figure - he will never be as famous as Saddam Hussein; but it does, in my opinion, render the article worthwhile. The deletion or inclusion of this article sets a precedent that will impact the creation (or not) of an expandible body of articles for (minor) architects across the UK, Ireland and Europe. Adam bones 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Adam bones[reply]
    Comment: The work is the work of a partnership of Mark Hackett and Alastair Hall. However, this is a company of approximately four staff. It isn't an anonymous coproration, but a partnership, and as such the partners are entitled to recognition. Mugabe 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Because a subject does not score a lot of hits on Google, does not mean he does not exist, or that he has not achieved some level of notability. If this is the yardstick by which notability is measured, the internet will self-propagate into an information source for internet-people about internet-people. The subject is a significant architect in northern Ireland and the article should stand. Simmarian 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I have not seen any evidence to make me think that this meets the standards for biographical information at WP:BIO, or his company the standards at WP:CORP. --ForbiddenWord 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-deletion: The subject does not seem as notable as many on the British architects list. He is undoubtedly a minor, regional architect. The question is, whether this makes him of no interest, or whether his achievements are such to give rise to an article. He clearly exists, the article is researched and referenced (if scant on detail), and therefore verifiable. Verifiability is a semi-criterion for inclusion, and on this basis the subject could be given the benefit of the doubt and left as a stub. 83.70.182.44 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has <20 edits and appears to be User:Adam bones, after looking at contributions. --ForbiddenWord 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's patently obvious that User:ForbiddenWord has a history of confrontation in editing of articles. What isn't so obvious is whether (s)he has any expertise or knowledge of the subject matter at hand, that is regional architecture in the United Kingdom. Even were one to make the assumption that this article has been scheduled for deletion in good faith (which I am not suggesting to be the case), it remains the fact that the only reason for which the deletion is proposed is, that the user cannot find any further information on the subject. If this isn't a reason to have an article on this individual, I don't know what is. Suffice to say that if this article is deemed to be unnecessary, the remaining Northern Ireland architect stubs are equally so - eg Ciaran Mackel 73 Google results; Mervyn Black 32; Aileen Hull 15.Adam bones 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Yes, AFD is a place for confrontation, debate, and discussion. If it takes tribulation to get consensus on a subject, then I have no qualms at all about doing so. --ForbiddenWord 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, if you have any qualms about the articles you listed, the steps for nominating an article for deletion may be found at WP:AFD --ForbiddenWord 20:47, 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 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As one of the comments above indicates, he is a young man. That's a problem, as a biography covers a life that is set apart from others. It is not a sign of recognition, nor a validation. It is a summary of a significant and notable life that is referred to by other media. There is little to no indication that this architect has achieved the sort of stand alone fame as to require explanation for a curious world. We wish him well and continued success, but architects, of all professionals, take ages to make their marks. Geogre 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and per Geogre. Subject's track record has not reached level of encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Claims that the subject's firm is "increasingly dominating" Northern Ireland architecture is totally unverified and unsourced. This line is particularly underwhelming:"Other important works include modifications to a house at Oakland Avenue in Belfast, reception spaces at the Belfast House of Sport, fit-out of Deane's Deli, Belfast" Bwithh 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The general criteria is that there must be enough note of this person to establish NPOV, and it's just not out there. This page is basically just the person's website copied into Wikipedia, and that is obviously not acceptable. If you can't at least find a few sources that say something about him, he's not notable enough. Flagging as a stub would be fine if we had any reason to think the lack of info was due to lack of effort, but as others have pointed out, there's just nothing else to say about this person. A relevent quote from WP:BIO, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" Widely recognized may be subjective, but 'enduring historical record' is not. 100 years from now, no one, even in his field, will remember one of 62 people to win some award some year. He's not Frank Gehry. If people want to know about him, they'll go to his website, not an encylopedia. --captainManacles
  • Delete per above —Minun Spiderman 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. wikipediatrix 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of args pro & con doesn't demonstrate his notability. Carlossuarez46 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Geogre's right on the mark, as usual. —Encephalon 02:24, 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. Kimchi.sg 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No to Reservations[edit]

Non-notable website/forum. After some searching on the net, I did not find ANY mention of this forum in any newspaper/website other than self. Clearly fails WP:WEB. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as the website doesn't appear to meet any of the relevant criteria for notability. Anirvan 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a significant political and social issue that should be included. --Vikramsingh 01:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The issue is important without doubt. This nom is about a specific website/forum's article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ambuj. The site has a Google PR of 0. Besides less than 10,000 votes have been registered till now. Fails WP:WEB. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:15, 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 21:49, 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. Kimchi.sg 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Mogridge[edit]

non-notable bio. Prod removed by original author. Author has created numerous XfD'd articles in the past, and this is yet another example. Rklawton 16:19, 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 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject is non-notable, and the article is nearly an attack page. John254 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A local in-the-news event. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Geogre 02:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtronica[edit]

Neologism. About 200 hits searching, and none at a research site. Mikeblas 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The initial entry is basic but (hopefully) informative. The term may be an amalgam of two terms but is used to describe a particular sub-genre of music. Hence the term is not a substitute for either dub or electronica. I first saw the term used in music magazine The Wire althought dance music websites, mixtape web sites and record reviews also use the term. I have no idea why research sites don't use the term. However if music reviewers use the term on a regular basis it will eventually be listed.--Ragudave 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folktronica is a neologism and musical genre. Should it be deleted as well?--Ragudave 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the current discussion, but I can find lots of usage of "folktronica" at media sites (eg, the BBC music pages, a couple of respected review sites, and so on) while "dubtronica" doesn't seem to make the radar.
Neither article is at all useful, though. Compare them to the impressionism article, for instance. I can read that article and have a good enough idea about what the style means that I could go to a museum, see some paintings, and recognize them as impressionist work. After reading either the "dubtronica" or "folktronica" articles, I'd be hard pressed to pick out a song of either genre. The articles don't offer a clue about the history of the genres, where they originated, or their identifying characteristics; they provide no information about the technique, other than describing them as an arbitrary almalgam of other genres.
Worst of all, I've found no references in either article to guide me to authoritative study on the subject. -- Mikeblas 14:24, 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 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve — It does not follow that a poorly developed article immediately means the topics is useless. This article is hardly ready for prime time, but Ragudave provides sufficient argument to justify retention (and improvement).
  • I have said elsewhere that I am in favor of fumigating to get rid of all the subgenres that are breeding in the cool, dark places. Merge and redirect to dance music or house music or electronica. This is a valid subgenre, and the term has currency (ick), but that doesn't mean there is a sufficient amount to say about it for a stand-alone article. Geogre 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a question of should we delete, rather stubify or Re-direct! -- Librarianofages 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After going through the search results in google, I hardly find any mention of it except in web-forums. There also seems to be a guy with Dubtronica as a profile name. There are a few mention in music sites I am not quite sure are notable. If someone can suggest a glossary page (or like Geogre's suggestion of Electronica)into which this can be merged , I think it shouldn't be that big a problem. If there isn't a suitable candidate, delete. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO unless verifiable sources can be cited to establish validity. Scorpiondollprincess 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect per Geogre. Having separate articles on Folktronica, Dubtronica, and soon no doubt Reggaetronica (10 ghits) and Bluestronica (118 ghits) etc., makes about as much sense as having separate articles for blue paint, mauve paint, and purple paint. Arbitrarily assigned subsubgenres largely indistinguishable even to aficionados == endless proliferation of stubs unless we adopt a strict policy of merging. — Haeleth Talk 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yeah, well, don't look now, but: Category:Shades of orange. Even those articles manage to give a description of the colors that offers more information about discernign them from eachother than these neo-genre articles do. -- Mikeblas 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bucketsofg✐ 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not call for experts in reggae to improve this entry? I have e mailed a reggae DJ and reviewer for his thoughts on the matter. This sub genre's most famous hit was probably a track used by Levis by Pole. I think it was from their Yellow album... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.165.178 (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. Kimchi.sg 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Grasshopper[edit]

Article seems like a memoir more than an article about the band. Does regional popularity of a "short-lived" band count as enough notability for an article? Wildthing61476 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BAND, and is written in first-person (ie. WP:VAIN) --Porqin 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello,
    This is the first time create/edit a page. I really enjoyed this band from Miami. I would like to request for this page to be posted. I have try to improve this page as best as I can. Please let me know what else I have to do. What else do I need to fix to keep this page up?
    P.S. I am really thankful for wikipedaia it is so Great!!
    Thank-You for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 305ers (talk • contribs)
    • While we value everyone contributions to Wikipedia, there are guidelines that all contributors abide by. Please review what type of information Wikipedia is looking for, and review what Wikipedia is not. I hope you will continue to contribute to the Wikipedia! --Porqin 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the {{hangon}} tag from the page, since it is not needed at this point. Wildthing61476 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the quote from Against All Authority can be sourced - Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:32, 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 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All Music Guide has never heard of them. For an "incredibly influential band," that's rather rare, even if they were on an indie label. Additionally, I've never seen mention in Mojo, and I was a punk musician at that time and never heard a peep (but I was nowhere near the hardcore pokes). Much more likely a hoax than a band, with no references, no dates, and nowhere to turn. Geogre 02:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Roger Restaurant[edit]

7:Original author requests deletion of 2:Test pages by a newbie --GoDot 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't this have been prod'ed? --Lukobe 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete per nom; non-notable restaurant. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Keep per some nominators below, by expanding this article. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I change to delete - article exists. --Bigtop 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was chopped out of an integral context in the complete article at Lake City, Seattle, Washington#Storied past, by other than the author, without consideration of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (Iinitial post link is also above, "Original author".) The damage was soon repaired; this is left over. --GoDot 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) --15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topic already exists in complete form in the context of its neighborhood (expannded and per Wikipedia:Manual of style) It is already expanded and improved, at its home in Lake City #Storied past This is a duplicate scrap. --09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC), --15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*Expand and Keep Looks like a genuine article to me and a little historically relevant. It does need more references though.--Ageo020 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I have seen a Discovery Documentary that had something to do with many restaurants doing what written as especially notable in this article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No articles link to here, and the information is already in Lake City, Seattle, Washington, I believe (and if it isn't it could certainly be incorporated there). --Lukobe 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: perfectly happy to see it integrated back into Lake City, Seattle, Washington, at least for now; on the other hand, with some good research a lot could be written about the Jolly Roger itself, and even now we have a bit more than a stub (though one much in need of cleanup). Still, given that Lake City Way was also once home to a Coon Chicken Inn, I'd certainly consider discussing them both together in the context of Lake City, Seattle, Washington. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 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 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Keep & improve — The place did exist when I was in grad school; my wife reminds me it was down on the right when driving north. It burned (very probably intentionally) to obviate the need to deal with the historic designation. The article is not of stunning importance, but has both prohibition era significance & is an example of arson to bypass zoning and protection regulations. Added category:prohibition and considered creating a category:arson designation since there are 11 Wikipages for arson, but don't know the subject well enough to argue compelling for category:arson. Regardless, if it is borderline, we should retain and improve. Williamborg (Bill) 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion changed based on a rather well thought out and courteous note from GoDot pointing out that the topic already exists in improved and complete form, per Wikipedia standards, in context, at Lake City, Seattle, Washington#Storied past. Made my recommendation based on insufficiently thorough research. My error; my pleasure to correct it. Williamborg (Bill) 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Redundant (per Jmabel) and occupying a non-unique name. The information is already present, so redirect until the name is needed by something else. I did not get anything from the article to indicate that this was more than a local landmark or why it is important. I'm sure it is, but the article didn't communicate it. Geogre 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Lake City, Seattle, Washington. Not encyclopedically notable enough for its own article. Okay as part of a local neighborhood page Bwithh 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of historical interest, but needs some sources. David L Rattigan 10:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already exists in Lake City, Seattle, Washington. Isn't notable enough to stand on its own. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and improve —Minun Spiderman 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Ambuj Saxena. My feeling is that the article has too little about the structure and institution itself, and too much about the fire, but that's just an observation. If it used to be a local landmark, this makes it more important than any old speakeasy. Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article is there in Lake city, then this should be deleted. Thanks GoDot for showing my error and being extremely polite and courteous on my talk page. --Ageo020 00:49, 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 09:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anait[edit]

Delete: badly written ("short, nice and powerful"), vague ("there are mysteries"), unsourced. Articles about the goddess Anait or the story Queen Anait might be useful, this isn't. Pseudomonas 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. What is said is notable if backed by verifiable sources. The article doesn't have them, so could be pure original research. Also note the artist's signature in the image. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:38, 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 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: This is absolutely not what Wikipedia is about. We are not a book of baby names, and we are not a guide to all possible onomastics. This is someone's vanity. I think the name "Geogre" is wonderful, and of American origin, and it means "delete this nonsense right away, without tears or second thoughts." Geogre 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Re-write If verified should be kept, then stubified and re-writtten, if it is just vanity then I have no objections to deletion. -- Librarianofages 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre.--Peta 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V WilyD 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Jmatt1122 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe this just passes WP:DUMB, but that's about all. Moreschi 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Bucketsofg✐ 23:32, 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 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Taubert[edit]

Non-notable vanity biography (WP:VAIN, WP:BIO). Google searches indicate no accomplishments of note, except the usual blog and forum posts, etc. His stories are apparently unpublished, and the magazine he is editor of has yet to actually publish its first issue, according to its website. Sandstein 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been hasty: the article claims that his stories were published in what appear to be minor local publications and/or his own blog. Still falls way short of WP:BIO, though. Sandstein 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Has numerous publications, but none of note. I would say a borderline case of notability, that may get notable sometime in future. But not now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:41, 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 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Solidly fails WP:BIO Bwithh 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. I would like to point out that contrary to the advertisement at the bottom of the 1page, Wikiquote does not have a collection of quotations related to Eric Taubert. --Xrblsnggt 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clear vanity and advertising. I nowiki'd it, as I'm a little steamed at the free ride to Google stratospheres given this guy. Geogre 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 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. Kimchi.sg 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixiraq.com[edit]

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. (was both a speedy & prod) MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:11, 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 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Showing up on blogs does not mean that it is notable. Dark Shikari 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article itself says "The site itself doesn't has a very large community." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian - Talk 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom VoiceOfReason 01:54, 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. Kimchi.sg 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Falcons[edit]

An article about a semi-professional American football team. Currently unsourced and may not be verifiable without research in local press (i.e. off web); zero Gnews hits for "Flint Falcons". No opinion as to whether this is sufficiently notable for inclusion as I know nothing about the status of this sort of team in the collective consciousness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A league like this may be lucky to be considered in the same breath with the Football Conference North or South in England, but that would be a stretch. --DarkAudit 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all (just so it's clear) we're talking about American football not Football (soccer), but that's not the issue. I've been looking around for some sort of guidance or consensus on the issue of notability of different levels of teams. I've found lots of bickering, but no real consensus. The best I can gather is that the major (highest level) fully professional teams in any given sport and country are notable enough. There's a lot of debate on lower level teams, but I doubt that this amateur/semi-pro team would meet anyone's criteria. --Wine Guy Talk 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's why I brought up the Conference as a comparison. For the most part, no one outside the local area these teams call home even know these semi-pro teams exist. Unless it's a human-interest story, you'll never see these teams on ESPN. --DarkAudit 12:29, 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 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't even see why the league is notable, much less a single team from said league. -- Kicking222 23:04, 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 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One way to establish notability for a semipro or amateur team is to search for famous people who may have come in contact with the team. Did a former college star end up there? Did any alums matriculate to the NFL? The answer for both these questions is no. They don't seem to have a large fan base (most Falcons links lead to the YMCA team) and, most importantly, the team is defunct. It seems to me that in smaller leagues the more successful teams are town institutions with long histories. This team lasted less than 20 years. SliceNYC 01:28, 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. Kimchi.sg 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usapang Business with Ces Drilon & Cathy Yang[edit]

Not notable TV show. --Xrblsnggt 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, we have articles on just about every show in the US, why not keep the shows from other countries as well? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we have articles (or should) on notable TV shows, and this doesn't seem to be one BigHaz 22:38, 16 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 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This show doesn't appear to be notable. The show also appears not to exist anymore. There is very little context into the show, and there is no WP:V. --Porqin 18:03, 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 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Empty, relating to a cancelled show, and fails to meet any notability requirements. It's kind of a trifecta. (Oh, and arguing that other articles are bad, so this bad one should stay is absolutely not a winning strategy.) Geogre 02:54, 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 Redirected to Postage stamps and postal history of Santander. ViridaeTalk 08:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postal history of Santander[edit]

Article was redirected by mistake. The original has been restored and so this is now a duplicate that should be removed. --BlackJack | talk page 19:40, 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 21:55, 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 09:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Red[edit]

Non notable, one person?, company. Nuttah68 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Red is mass-produced, so I somehow doubt it's limited to Tyler Whitman. From Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations):
A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
Gothic Beauty is one magazine they've had a few interviews with, can't think of any others, but HR is notable as one of the more popular modern Goth brands. Ric | opiaterein 21:33, 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 21:56, 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. —Centrx→talk • 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form follows failure[edit]

Not quite sure if this one qualifies for speedy A7 or not, so I'm coming here to check. Nearly 3000 google hits. — FireFox 21:25, 21 July '06

  • Delete Obviously, the article appears to be a speedy delete under A7, and it appears that this is so. I couldn't find[2] anything that meets WP:MUSIC about the band, and the current article does not assert importance. Yanksox 21:36, 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 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. In searching through a few pages of the Google hits, only a tiny handful seem relevant, and not enough to qualify as significant coverage. Fan-1967 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, so tagged, no assertion of notability (or anything else -- almost an A1). NawlinWiki 00:23, 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 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collection Oriented Programming[edit]

Protologism, original research. 27 unique Google hits, including author's home page and some WP mirrors. Article author has this to say on his personal page: "Thus, I am here trying to sell the dream and vision of perhaps what should be called 'collection-oriented-programming.' I found it a more powerful metaphore than anything else on the market, and I hope you will too." Craig Stuntz 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more a complaint about the colloquial nature of blogs than the topic at hand. If somebody says in a blog, "Lisp is fricken cool and runs circles around other languages!", that is NOT a reason to delete Lisp topics. The above cited page is not even directly linked to by "collection oriented programming", and thus appears more of a complaint about the author's personal blog or blog style than of the wikipedia topic content itself.

If you want to argue that the name is not in common-enough usage to justify an article, that is another matter. As the case is stated above, I question the objectivity of the complaint.

Protologism complaints may not apply to computer-related topics because print publications are not where ideas are formed and shaped about software anymore. The web has largely replaced formal software journals, for good or bad.

"Collection oriented programming" is simply a name that encompasses a wide variety of tools and languages. It was not coined by the author of the above page. --Tablizer (7/20/2006)

That the term is "not common enough usage to justify an article" is precisely the issue I stated above. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but read the first sentence. I'm not sure why you think I have an issue with colloquial language outside of Wikipedia since I didn't write that, and, like you, I don't think it's a reason to delete. I brought up the page I linked because it's one of the few places which use the term at all and it explicitly says it's a protologism. I'll restate what I wrote above in more verbose terms in case my wording was confusing:
  • There are only 27 unique Google hits for the term.
  • One of them states that it is not an established methodology or term.
  • Some of the hits are more or less abandoned pages. For example, this page was imported from another Wiki, and it's been removed from the original source.
  • Some of the hits (like this one or this)use it in a very generic, descriptive sense rather than as the name of a methodology.
  • The article itself gives no citations for the term.
  • The document which appears to be the most legitimate potential citation, a paper by James Brakefield, appears to be unreferenced by anyone other than the author. I searched the ACM's guide to computing literature, a comprehensive index of nearly all computing research ever published, and found only one citation, by Brakefield.
  • Note that there is no exception to the avoid neologisms guideline for computer-related topics. The issue of usage of a term on the web vs. in print is a red herring here since this phrase isn't frequently used in either place.
In short, I see no reason to believe that this is a notable or verifiable methodology, and quite a few reasons to believe that it is not. --Craig Stuntz 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on grounds of notability and original research unless references are provided. Heck, I myself could cook up a few "programming metholodogies" if I tried.... --SJK 11:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deny originating the term. How about a compromise: a stub at the very top that questions the commonality of the term rather than outright deletion. It can serve as topic to tie together languages and tools with similar features. There is no alternative currently that I can find to describe the similarities of focusing on operations that operate on entire collections/data-structures. It is a concept found in linear algebra ("matrix math"), but arrays are not the only collections that can be treated this way. -Tablizer

Subjects which are not notable, verifiable, and cited do not belong on Wikipedia at all. It is original research regardless of whether you personally created the term (and please note that nobody here ever asserted you did). If you don't understand why this is true, read the definition of "original research" on the page I just linked. There is no "question" regarding the commonality of the term. It is almost totally unused in the field of computing. A search of 750000+ citations from 3000+ publishers yields two results, one of which is the Brakefield citation I discussed above, and the second of which describes an algorithm rather than something like what is in the article.
Note that even if this article wasn't OR — and I assert that it is, per the Wikipedia definition — it would still be inappropriate since it's an un-cited, un-verifiable protologism.
There are a number of areas of research, in programming and other fields, where there is no good alternative to existing technologies which solves a certain problem, or nothing published on a certain area of the field. That's fine — it's a great area in which to do research. But Wikipedia is not the place to publish it.
In closing I should add that I do welcome your contributions on established, verifiable methodologies such as relational databases, so please don't take this AfD personally. This is not a discussion of the merit of what you term "collection oriented programming," only its suitability for Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 19:38, 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 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism and/or original research. --Xrblsnggt 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 03:47, 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 09:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvyn BASIC[edit]

Non-notable implementation of the BASIC language. Searching for "Alvyn BASIC" gets about 80 hits, mostly from echos of this article. Mikeblas 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or at the very least merge) while it is not terribly notable when looking at all BASICs it is notable because the language it implements AMOS BASIC which was very notable. It has gotten a good amount of exposure on Amiga related websites and forums for this reason. - DNewhall 19:41, 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 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article does not cite any references other than SourceForge; in particular, it does not cite any sources that speak to its being an important or notable implementation. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 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. Kimchi.sg 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alien Costume, Part One[edit]

already prodded once, this is a very detailed rehash of a single episode of a cartoon. Split off from Spider-Man: The Animated Series by a new editor who created many duplicitive articles about comic book and cartoon characters (most of which have already been deleted or prodded). CovenantD 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep We have articles on individual episodes for other shows. This one needs to be cleaned up though. TJ Spyke 06:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing about this episode that needs its own article. Take out the lengthy plot summary and you have nothing. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:45, 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 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and per Aguerriero. Bwithh 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Yomangani 23:57, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Strawberry[edit]

Prod removed. Unsourced and made up concept. Delete and protect namespace. BlueValour 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ghits showed nothing of relevance. More than likely a WP:NEO or hoax. Also, article begins: John Strawberry is a football dribbling method. I didnt know you could dribble a football! SynergeticMaggot 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dribbling is a common term in the game called football in most of the world. Fan-1967 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes it is; it means running while keeping the ball close to your feet. However, John Strawberry is just someone having a joke unless they can source it. BlueValour 22:04, 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 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having had an "energy-filled look" at it it seems to fail WP:OR,WP:NEO,WP:V and probably WP:HOAX. Not sure the namespace needs protecting though. Yomangani 00:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tend to think that it's original research. - Richardcavell 01:59, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Pro[edit]

A wresting organization that hasn't wrestled yet and WONT for 5 months? Completely non-notable. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because it doesn't cite any sources and doesn't seem notable, especially if it's inactive for the next five months. Get rid of. Allisonmontgomery69 22:33, 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 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the smack down on this one (Delete) Wikipedia is neither an advertising service nor a crystal ball. --Xrblsnggt 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete inactive for 5 months? pfff. Stormscape 04:10, 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, because there never will be. Move along, nothing to see here. Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh High School[edit]

Non Notable School Newspaper98 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if you don't think all high schools are notable, this one successfully asserts notability (named Commended School twice, lists some famous alums). NawlinWiki 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Usgnus 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems quite notable, and besides, it also happens to be my school... --ApolloBoy 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - bad faith nom PT (s-s-s-s) 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:AGF PT... your claim this is a bad faith nom is merely a statement of your opinion.--Isotope23 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many schools do we have to insist on dragging through this process before we give up? Ansell 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment All of them until the keep voters start to come up with real arguments for inclusion. -- Koffieyahoo 02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per NawlinWiki. SliceNYC 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up or Delete article sounds like an ad. Says what the school does, blah blah. Statistics of successful students. How many music teachers school has. Content just sounds like propoganda. --Ageo020 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More than 90% of the article is written by unregistered users. --Ageo020 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's good, we encourage unregistered users to contribute to the encyclopedia. Needs a bit of cleanup and copyvio check, but looks like a great article otherwise. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'd love it if we could somehow stop this nomination of high schools trend. Erechtheus 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article provides very useful information on a successful school in the heart of California's Silicon Valley
  • Delete as wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Come up with some really interesting information about the past of this school, except for some people who spent some time there and I'm willing to reconsider. -- Koffieyahoo 02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NawlinWiki. --Tuspm(C | @) 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I somehow wish we could stop this "vote keep no matter what" trend. The article is chaotic, with information thrown in a jumble. The school hymn is vital information? It establishes the uniqueness of this institution? It got an award twice (in 44 years), and that makes it unique? How many other schools got the award every year? It looks like it's just another box full of students. Geogre 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools ARE NOT CANDIDATES FOR DELETION ^^ Deletionists should STOP this crusade! -- Librarianofages 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The arrow is pointing to me? I'm a "deletionist," eh? I write 220 articles on Wikipedia, get 8 featured articles, do admin work for years, but really I'm just out to delete articles? Wow. It's amazing what you can learn from a single vote on a single article so long as it's a public high school. There are no deletionists. There are only people who believe that we should cover information that needs a reference work for explanation and who do not think that Yellow Pages entries need such expansion. Geogre 04:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if some Chinese chap teaches three kids their ABCs in a pigsty and writes an article about it, it'll get automatically kept? Kimchi.sg 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because such an article would fail to meet WP:V. Please refrain from potentially racist remarks such as suggesting that Chinese people teach their children in pigstys.--Nicodemus75 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say categorically what you attributed to me. Kimchi.sg 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that wasn't a racist remark, and as such it is absolutely not nice. How categorical can you be when there is a wiki revision history available? Ansell 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement was hypothetical and generalized. The racist statement would have been: "So should an article about the Chinese people, who educate their children in pigstys, be kept?" That would have been making a racist statement; Kimchi.sg referenced an absurdist hypothetical condition. Assume good faith. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of defusing perceived racist overtones in my above statement: I was thinking of a hypothetical school with a smallest enrolment and smallest of locations - and the above is what came to my mind (see also my more polite version of the question, below). I'm Chinese, and have friends from the PRC, and again, I did not intend to categorically exhibit a hatred or dislike of any racial or ethnic group with the above. Kimchi.sg 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me put it more politely: do you genuinely and sincerely and wholeheartedly believe, that every school, no matter what enrolment or staff size (1 inclusive), curriculum, location, or condition, automatically deserves an article by virtue of its verified existence? Kimchi.sg 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not aware of any criteria stipulating which articles are and which articles aren't candidates for deletion; can you provide a source for this? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here you go: Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Usgnus 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that according to policy, lack of notability alone is not a criterion for deletion of schools. --Usgnus 03:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would categorize this as indiscriminate information. If a lack of notability is not a criterion (good word, btw) under which the article should be considered for deletion, then my apartment would qualify as an article. W/o notability taken into consideration, they would be standing on effectively the same merits. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • An article about your apartment would presumably fail the meet the requirements laid down in WP:V. Nice straw man however.--Nicodemus75 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Delete His appartment fails WP:V for the same reason as this school, hence, it's an appropriate analogy. I assume his appartment is listed in the phonebook, is it not? Similarly, this page is just a copy and paste of the school's website, entirely unneccisary. If the school is mentioned in an architectural journal, came up with a new method of teaching that is mentioned in an educational journal, was the center of a news event noted worldwide, fine, make a page. Otherwise, this is just an ad, fails WP:V fails WP:NPOV fails WP:NOR -- captainManacles.
              • Your assertion that that school fails WP:V is completely false, please re-read the policy. This school is clearly cited in the article in as referenced: "Miskulin, George F. A History of The Campbell Union High School District (1900-1988). pp. 25-26." A quick google search also renders many independent references to this school as a verifiable school. This page is not a copy and past of the school's website - please assume good faith that the various contributors to this article were not simply engaged in copyright violation while working on this article, especially when it is completely untrue.--Nicodemus75 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some people would and do disagree that this is indiscriminate. Ansell 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, sorry Librarianofages... but no article is completely immune from being nominated for deletion. Obviously you disagree strongly with schools being nominated, but it appears there are many people who disagree with you. That's why we have AfD.--Isotope23 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. While I am perfectly willing to assume good faith, this nomination could be viewed as suspicious, being made as it is by an account which was created today. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad faith nomination as stated above, but clearly the appropriate thing to do with this article was to tag it for cleanup. Verifiable high school articles haven't been deleted from wikipedia through deletion processes in the past 2 years. I wish we could stop the "vote delete to any nominate school article" as displayed by some of the editors here who "routinely nominated and/or vote to delete school articles".--Nicodemus75 03:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. If this were a company article it'd be trashed in a day. Kimchi.sg 03:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep school is notable. Stormscape 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete majority of the article is what classes and sports they offer. Company articles with lists of their products get chucked. Looking at the article, the keep votes here are just incomprehensible. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. AfD is not cleanup.--Nicodemus75 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Correct, but it is about the current contents of the article. It's not about what is potentially done with the article in the future. -- Koffieyahoo 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Please read the policy page at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed, specifically "Article needs a lot of improvement". This article requires an "attention" tag, not an AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicodemus75 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 July 2006
          • We got past that point and it was nominated for deletion. -- Koffieyahoo 04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this were an article on a worthwhile subject in the first place, you might have a point, Nicodemus. The reason these school articles are so often devoid of content is that there just isn't that much to say. Opabinia regalis 05:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, if Bulbasaur, a shitty pokemon character is "worthwhile" enough to be a featured article, just about any school I can imagine is "worthwhile" to have a plain old article. This is the very problem with these debates, some of us consider schools to be worthwhile and the deletion policies provide for these articles to be retained unless there is a consensus to delete them. Since all previous attempts to reach a consensus on retaining schools articles as a policy, we are forced to repeat these "discussions" on almost every school AfD that comes up.--Nicodemus75 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know, Celestianpower and HighwayCello put a lot of work into getting Bulbasaur to featured status. Show a little respect, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And yet the writers of that page found 4 times as much stuff to say about the shitty pokemon character in question then anyone anywhere has to say about your shitty school. We might not enjoy playing pokemon, but it's spawned a cartoon and cardgame, been parodied and mentioned in many other shows and media. It's been the subject of numerous news pieces. It's a subject of debate among religious conservatives. It's the brainchild of one of the most powerful organizations in Japan, and may have collectively led to hundreds of millions in revenue, and was important in spawning entire genres of TV and card games. If historians in 100 years look back on our time, they might make note of pokemon, they probably won't note your school. --captainManacles
              • The article in question is not Pokemon which is what the vast majority of your remarks apply to. In 100 years (like the details of most fads from 100 years ago) individual pokemon characters will almost entirely be forgotten (e.g. can you tell me without researching which honours can catch the ten in Scotch Whist?). This school will mostly likely still exist, just like most schools from 100 years ago still exist.--Nicodemus75 09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd agree that we have massive Pokemon bloat, merely existing for 100 years isn't notable either. Opabinia regalis 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as an obvious bad faith / sockpuppeted nomination. Silensor 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if you are so sure it is an obvious sockpuppet, maybe you should request a checkuser to back up your allegations.--Isotope23 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, believe it or not, I am voting keep (even though technically I am not a school deletionist). I am really suspicious of the nominator, who made two bad faith nominations yesterday, and I question the legitimacy of the nomination. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a school, with a list of sports, principals and notable alumuni who I've never heard of. It's mentioned in the school district article so it really doesn't need a separate article with such minor information. Catchpole 08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I don't agree with the schools are notable for being schools line, the precedent has been well and truly set. Personally I would like to delete all schools in the project that are only listed because they are a school. Universities are about the only education provider that consistently notable on their own. ViridaeTalk 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a clear past precdent to keep high schools, and this article is not too bad. An alumni list is also present, so I don't think that poor quality or lack of content makes this a deletable article either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, past precedent isn't binding on AFD. That hardly negates the rest of what you said, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has enough context. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough and there is a strong precedent to include such schools.--Auger Martel 11:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Folks keep saying "notable" and "notable enough" and the like. Since these same people argue that "notability is not a requirement," what I want to know is what sets this school apart from other schools? If this is the sort of school that you would say, "Ooooh, I'm going to take note of that one; it's not like every other one at all," I would like to know what it is that would draw that. I ask because I can't see where the article gives anything, and we are supposed to be talking about the article, and not the article type, not former arguments, not the nominator, and not our general views of Wikipedia. Geogre 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, bringing up the nominator in a sense answers your question. This school was singled out because a newly registered editor listed it for deletion. There are plenty of other schools whose articles are in worse shape or are less than stubs that are not marked for deletion, partly because experienced editors know that it is very unlikely that a legitimate high school article will ever get deleted (even if they wish they would be). This same editor tried to speedy delete Golden Horn and St. Elizabeth Catholic High School. --Usgnus 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, other articles needing deletion really doesn't answer why this should be kept. I can agree that the nominator is suspicious, but I don't think that there would be delete votes possible if the article in question weren't failing the guidelines. The people voting to delete aren't trolls, aren't "deletionists," aren't haters of education, America, and apple pie, and the people voting "keep" have been the first to bring in personalities and to label other voters with some imagined opprobrium. If we remain focused on the article and whether or not it violates the deletion policy, it's fair to ask what, about this article, gives us a singular quality to the subject. (I vote to keep schools some of the time, delete some of the time; it depends on the article, not its subject.) Geogre 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools. Vizjim 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's been decided that all high schools are worthy of articles (which is fair - all countries are worthy of articles), I just hacked out the spam and let it stick. WilyD 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to argue on an AfD, but where was "it decided?" If anything like that ever passed, it's news to me and a horrible development. I'm not sure "all countries" are in, either. If an article on a real country says, "Russia is a big country to the east of me," I'd vote to delete the article (not "clean it up"). Further, micronations claim to be countries and are routinely cast out. Further, schools are not like nations in any manner except occupying space. Sorry if I sound hostile, but I'm not aware of any place where anything passed saying that "all schools" (or "all" anything) are in. Geogre 13:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a part of the common law of WP:AfD - not sure if it's codified anywhere. To delete an article titled Russia rather than clean it up is pure madness. If an article about a country is just a stub, it's still worthwhile It's a stub is not a good criterion for deletion. Micronations claiming to be countries in general fails WP:HORSE and thus the position All countries are inherently worthy of articles is a true one. FWIW, I'm not saying that I believe that all high schools are worthy of articles, just that it is a part of the common law that they are. WilyD 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Despite your apparently relish for citing your own contributions, these comments exactly categorize the problem with your position on these issues. AfD is not cleanup, and yet you think it is just fine to ignore the stated policies at WP:DP in order to effectively use AfD as a tool for cleaning up articles that are worthwhile. An article about Russia is so obviously not a candidate for deletion as to beg the question, irrespective of its condition. Although it is instructive to know what little regard you actually hold for the established policies and practices on cleanup and stubs and deletion.--Nicodemus75 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need to check your syntax a bit. If you mean that I have a relish for citing my own articles, it is no relish, but rather a refutation to the common thuggery of "you deletionist you," which is an absurdity when applied to any editor. Secondly, "policy" for AfD is the deletion guideline. An article on Russia that is "Russia is a country to the east of me" is not an article. It is not a stub. It is not a substub. It is, instead, a speedy deletion candidate. Please look at the speedy delete guidelines and come to understand them. Also, if you believe that single sentences are articles, I suspect that you may be thinking of HiLites and not an encyclopedia. Geogre 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No syntax check required. They are not "your" articles. I assume you are referring to your contributions. I don't care if you initiated ten thousand articles on wikipedia, it doesn't change the fact that you "routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school-related articles", and that you do so on the basis that you don't consider individual schools to be a worthwhile subject matter for individual articles. You're entitled to do so, but the rest of us are equally entitled vote to keep such articles on the basis that we DO consider individual schools to be a worthwhile subject matter for individual articles. You continually (for years now) to insist that we ought to somehow leave the opinion that schools are inherently noteworthy "at the door", as it were - but at the same time you and the rest of those "who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school-related articles" are free to cart your opinion right on into the AfD discussions. Add a dose of heaping condescencion, then brag a little about your own contributions and guess what - despite all that, not a single verifiable high school article has been excised from wikipedia through the deletion processes in almost 2 years. I believe single sentence articles are stubs, as per policy.--Nicodemus75 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I vote to keep some schools, delete some schools, and redirect others, as I actually read the article and decide whether it follows policy. You, however, prejudge that all of something fits. As for whether I "routinely" vote to delete, I do not routinely vote any way. I actually consider the article. On the other hand, you vote and encourage others to vote by rote, by routine, to vote universally, without consideration of the individual at hand. This is combined with an absolute error of fact, as several school articles have been deleted just in the last two weeks, much less in the last two years. I assume you watchlist every one of them and watch New Pages obsessively to make sure that every single school is preserved, no matter what the nature of hte "article?" That kind of obsession is unhealthy. As for whether my contributions are my articles, I will leave that absurdity alone. However, what is at stake is much, much more pernicious than a single case of your playing "gotcha": You and others voting by routine rather than by consideration have routinely attacked the character, intelligence, and motives of every person voting contrary to your opinion. You, collectively, have tried to make each consideration personal rather than intellectual and a matter of passion rather than judgment. This is corrosive. While I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble, I am interested in stopping this habit of people attacking nominators and voters. It is absolutely disgusting to observe. "Winning" something as ridiculous as "Schoolwatch" by continually belittling and hectoring is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. Geogre 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it is not appropriate to "remove personal attacks" unless you also archive them elsewhere and insert a link to that location. If you believe that you have been personally insulted in some manner, go through proper dispute resolution, and report the actions on WP:AN/I. I will be happy to have my words examined by uninvolved parties. If you simply remove by deletion again, it will be considered vandalism. Geogre 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to people as "feeble" is undoubtedly a personal attack. I would request that you read WP:NPA yourself and refrain from such uncivil and blatantly hostile remarks in the future. Continuating of such personal attacks is a violation of policy which can result in your being blocked.--Nicodemus75 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Several school articles have been deleted in just the last two weeks" I am sorry, but this is a an attempt to obfuscate the truth. First of all, as I clearly stated in the previous comment, "not a single verifiable high school article has been excised from wikipedia through the deletion processes in almost 2 years" - that is a fact. The only school articles deleted at all in the recent past are either non-verifiable, outright hoaxes (in some cases authored by editors who "routinely nominated and/or vote to delete school articles"), copyright violations, or valid speedy delete candidates. I take umbrage at the uncivil and frankly, insulting nature of the remainder of your comments which certainly border on personal attacks.--Nicodemus75 20:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good quality school, but still basically not notable. -- GWO
  • Weak Keep as verifiable sources are cited establishing notability. Perhaps the crux of this discussion should be taking place on a policy page about whether or not schools are notable (and if so, what makes them notable). I gather most of the discussion here is not about this school, but rather about school notability in general. I'm inclined to let this stay until a consistent policy for all schools has been established. And remember, No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man over it! Scorpiondollprincess 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another reason to keep this particular school article is that it's on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/California. --Usgnus 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As there is no consensus criteria for notability of schools, I'll keep using my own for now. Accordingly this specific High School page meets my criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools are permenant structures that affect the lives of hundreds of people. The fact that it's not important to you doesn't make it unimportant or non-noteable.
  • Delete per Geogre. wikipediatrix 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per RJH above. Stop the school deletionists! Capit 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable about an average school in an upper-class neighborhood which has (unremarkably) high test scores and has produced a few minor figure alums none of whom are noted for their high educational attainment. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I know that Everett High School is notable, but this one isn't! --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes it more notable? --Usgnus 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, that high school is even less notable. The article discusses none of the merits of the school. If I weren't lazy, that school would be nominated as well.--Shrek05 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a moderately notable school to me, between the awards and the alumni. EVula 17:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am changing my vote to delete per Geogre's explanation. I'm also getting really tired of the school inclusionists who insist that there is a conspiracy to delete all school articles on Wikipedia. Insisting there is one and using that to shape their arguments (and nothing else) is a blatant and glaring violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Someone needs to do something about it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Amen to that Coredesat.--Isotope23 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure there is a "conspiracy", but there is a concerted effort underway (for some time) to excise school articles from wikipedia and find a way to overturn the overwhelming precedent that school articles are simply not deleted (as a general rule) through the deletion processes. Why do I say there is a concerted effort? Mass-nominations of related schools all on the same day (both this month and last month). Sock-puppet nominations to AfD (such as this one). Refusual by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" to recognize that there even is a precedent (which there obviously is). (Yes, I recognize that the precedent is not binding upon future AfD discussions, but "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" ought to take that precedent into account before nominating school articles and before engaging in these "discussions"). Repeated assertions and claims that there is "no consensus to keep high schools", when well over 95% of AfD disucssions on high school articles have ended in overwhelming consensus to keep. After over 2 years of wrangling, it really is time for "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" to find a new hobby horse and accept that school articles have become a standard part of wikipedia. With there being over ten thousand articles about schools included in the project to date, average readers will have certainly come to expect to find school articles in the encyclopedia when referencing them. On many days, scores of new school articles are created and the inevitability of the nature of this project ensures that the vast majority of these will reamin in the project and be organically expanded. Those who do not believe that schools are worthwhile, or notable, or encyclopedic have every right to that opinion and to express it, but I think we can all agree that these debates (at least on high school articles) are largely fruitless and irrespective of what side of the debate you fall on, in light of the overwhelming precedent, these "discussions" in and of themselves add precious little to wikipedia. All this being said, it is no excuse for some "inclusionists" to violate WP:CIVIL in their frustration.--Nicodemus75 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Nicodemus, in my opinion deletionism, like a cancer, is eating up the vital information that helps draw in people to the project. The consensus in the community is to keep all school articles. I completely understand people getting frustrated and I think that people after having been frustrated about all their valuable high school facts need to lash out a little bit. --ForbiddenWord 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment, Nobody needs to lash out ForbiddenWord... and those that do on both sides of the debate should be dealt with. WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and (as Nicodemus75 mentioned) WP:CIVIL need to be observed no matter how strongly you feel. Deconstruct peoples' arguments or debate policy; but lashing out, or calling deletionism (or inclusionism) for that matter a "cancer", adds nothing valuable to the debate.--Isotope23 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even going to get into the schools are notable/not notable debate, I'm just here to say keep and that AfD is *not* cleanup. Many of the people who have a problem with this article aren't even discussing notablility. "It sounds like an ad," "Why is the school hymn in there?" SoFixIt! Jacqui★ 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a school prospectus. SoFixIt? There's nothing to fix. It is not possible to write an encyclopedia article on this subject. Deletion is the fix here. — Haeleth Talk 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - this is a high school that makes explicit claims of notability, with multiple alumni who have merited inclusion on their own merit. The nominator appears to be a sock puppet whose body of work seems to be a series of bad faith AfDs. Alansohn 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schoolwatch flood above. It is rarely appropriate to delete ANYTHING that is not vandalism, especially a school. --ForbiddenWord 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom by Geogre. Having 3 famous alumni is hardly claim to fame. So its a good school within the state, great, but fails notability. Example of a notable high school in the area would be Palo Alto High School; this high school hardly compares.--Shrek05 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Long precedent for keeping high school articles. Could use a clean-up, though. Justinpwilsonadvocate 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful contribution to coverage of education in San Jose. Kappa 20:02, 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 unspeedy delete keep a.k.a. no consensus - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Frosties Kid[edit]

This article has been going through a pointless revert war due to aggressive editing from certain editors, the fact that it is now only 3 lines serves no purpose, nor is it useful to anyone trying to find out more information relating to the subject or phenomenon of "The Frosties Kid", basically there is no reason to have this article when all the content pertaining to the subject matter is not present. The discussions in the talk page have resulted to no consensus so now I am putting it up for deletion to see what the redeeming qualities are to keep such a pointless installment to WP. Piecraft 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This editor is just mad because of a content disagreement. We currently have a proposal in the talk page for a final version. --mboverload@ 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please do not try to make this personal. I couldn't care less about the article as it stands. I put it up for nom. because as it stands (as I have explained) it is not notable, nor bears purpose as a decent WP article therefore it should be deleted in my opinion. There is insufficient information relating to this subject, being an article relating to the protagonist The Frosties Kid when there isn't even a full name for the actor or any other information and evidence given other than 3 lines of text which hardly inform of anything. It should be deleted because it is not a worthy article, the three sentences are very vague and do not possess any possible information that contribute to the article or subject. Piecraft 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - content disagreements should be taken to WP:RFC or WP:RFM if they can't be resolved on the talk page. Yomangani 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not a content disagreement this is a disagreement for such an article which hold no decent content relating to the subject matter to be included within WP. This as of now is basic internet cruft. If the article is changed to "The Frosties Kid Commercial" or moved to Frosties cereal and the three lines moved into that article then fine. But as a stand alone vague article it does not belong here according to the guidelines. Piecraft 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Yomangani. -- Vary | Talk 00:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Bp28 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, pointless article Piecraft 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't try to "stuff the ballot box"; for one thing, the process is immune to this (decisions are made on the strength of arguments rather than vote count), and for another your nomination has already explained your argument enough that repeating it here as an additional "vote" isn't necessary. -- H·G (words/works) 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, once again you're making things out to be as they aren't I am not "stuffing the ballot box" if this article is kept fine, I put my vote because when I put it up for nomination I forgot to state I wanted it deleted. Any senior editor who will close this vote will see that, if I was making up votes I would be posting under several aliases. And I'm not pathetic like some people have been in the past to do such a deed. Piecraft 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know about "once again," I think the above comment was my only one in this AfD until now. But to the extent that I may have misinterpreted your comment, I apologize. It's generally understood that an editor who nominates an article for deletion supports its deletion, and I've seen more than a few users try to sway a discussion with multiple posts; in such cases, it seems helpful to inform them as to why this doesn't work. -- H·G (words/works) 05:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Life is too short to get worked up over someone on a commercial called The Frosties Kid --Xrblsnggt 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into frosties article.--Peta 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is sufficiently notable in his own right. I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a merge either but this topic certainly needn't be deleted. AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. GassyGuy 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Speedy Delete. Sorry, but I agree. This isn't noteworthy, and it certainly doesn't need its own article. It could be merged into Rice Krispies, or simply deleted. But this page needs to not be here anymore. --ThatBajoranGuy 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rice Krispies? I'm guessing you mean, er, Frosties? GassyGuy 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GassyGuy. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least merge as the Frosties kid is just a person in a short-running ad campaign. Nowhere near the more notable of uk advert characters such as the milky bar kid or even Frosties own Tony the Tiger. MLA 08:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The Frosties kid is an advertsment and has notability. My own thoughts are that it should be regarded as a notable advertisment rather than a spiel about a kid none of us know. Their are no less than 5 ADMINS involved with the article and every ADMIN seems to think that EVERYONE must be a 13yr old kid who adds to the article. There has been Flaming Talk:The_Frosties_Kid/Archive_1. The commercial runs day and night in the UK and has been a source of rumour since it was first screened in movie halls.

WIKIPEDIA should not be the source of wild uncited rumour. However WIKIPEDIA can be a source where people can makeup their on minds and be led to outside sources.
I did not create this article, my only interest is that Frosties Kid has become part of living culture (you here about him on the bus, train, school-ground and pub) in the UK.
I have presented an article about The Frosties Kid Article sandbox and so has Mboverload both articles treat the Frosties Kid as being the advert (New Frosties advert [3] and not the boy. My dream is simple accept the ADVERT as a concept of Idealism think about the advert. Will it live in peoples minds? Will people consult WIKIPEDIA in two or ten years time about the frosties kid as an ADVERT? Mike33
Comment, if this article is relating to the advertisement commercial it should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the commercial and the title suggests otherwise. Piecraft 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per MERGER Frosted Flakes editors gave a huge sigh of releif when The Frosties Kid was opened. It had become a source of attack and vandalism. MERGER is an impossibilty.
Again, my last few sentences on the matter is to Keep, however i would ask editors to write articles THAT YOU WANT in place of 3 lines. But please remember that other editors can only justify if they are properly sourced. Mike33 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Posted by Mike33 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, once again I will state the facts as they stand. It's true that the Frosties Kid is an internet phenomenon but this is not present in the article. And regardless what mboverload or any other editor who has been associated to the ongoing mess that is a discussion about this article says, the proposed substitution articles are hardly useful or according to the title. If you want to make an article relating to the commercial than do it by all means, but this one is NOT about the commercial. Let's try again THE FROSTIES KID should be an article relating to the character, perhaps the phenomenon relating or not relating to him and anything between. It is not an excuse to write three lines where, the first describes the ad and the last describes the jingle and there is no purpose for it. When there is no purpose for the content relating to an article it is void of being useful or having a point, and in this case I continue to say this article is pointless. I would agree to either MERGE with Frosted Flakes/Frosties article - seeing as it would fit into a "popular culture" or "trivia" section. Otherwise delete and remake an article based on the appropiate subject matter i.e. the commercial itself and not some ambiguous character here that has hardly any information relating to it (supposedly). Piecraft 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Frosted Flakes. As one of the main contributors I think Wikipedia should have some information on it, but obviously this would never be big enough to be a forever-stub. --mboverload@ 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep If Modified ELSE Merge - see talk page --Jum4 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete realists always win over idealists (Realists = what they see must be true however unsourced) i am tired of this whole subject - it is an advert and nothing more. A performer in the advert has been ridiculed in web blogs/forums. Realists please remember the picture is not the frame. Mike33 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Frosted Flakes. wikipediatrix 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and expand. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as useless article. Moreschi 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Bucketsofg✐
  • Speedy Keep Bababoum 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Merge with Frosted Flakes. We don't give articles to a character who briefly appeared in one commercial in only a few countries. The Dell Dude's many commercials are far more notable worldwide than the Frosties Kid, and even he doesn't get his own article. Crabapplecove 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at best form given the information we have, it's a 3 line stub. At worst it's full of unnecessary junk, and possibly a copyvio. If we wish to consider notability there's no real reason for this to even be in an encyclopedia. It's an article about a charcter who is in a single commercial. If it was a recurring character, than I possibly could see it. But just one? Delete, please. The information isn't even notable enough for a merge.--Toffile 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the reason for this AfD was ever about Notability, if it survives this AfD, that can be raised by other editors. This Afd concerns how the article is steered whether (1)it should be about an ADVERTISEMENT or (2)about a kid who happens to appear in an advertisement (who despite all the wealth of information the Internet gives us is nameless). Not sure how copyvio comes into it. It (as the article stands as I write this) includes a short summary of the subject matter of the advert (albeit pointless when readers are directed to a well written full synopsis) and a screen grab (properly listed as FAIR USE ONLY). Mike33 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a rant and rave comment in [[4]] its not about actual policy but discusses the Organic nature of an open ended Wiki. It is not however intended to be read as a "vote" one way or another. It is an OT rant and rave. Mike33 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a request for comments. It is a process to determine if the subject material should be used in the encyclopedia. I do not believe it belongs in this encyclopedia.--Toffile 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the copyvio deals with the usage of lyrics some previous versions have had. --Toffile 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge the lyrics have not appeared in the article for over 14 days. Afd is not a "vote" and yes it is an invitation for comment. The idea of an Encylopedia is not cut and dry, all encyclopedias have many contributors, and many styles of writing. Until 2 hours ago, I had no idea that Dell Dude existed. On our side of the pond Dell Dude isn't well known - should I raise that as AfD? All articles have a place on Wikipedia as long as they are not crass, self purpetuating, or breach formally agreed rules WP:Notability. Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived)
Comment can create changes in perception. I am all in favour of that. My decision that I agree with the originator of this AfD was that the article was replaced by an idea I posted in a sandbox, that the article should be steered in another direction. It was never decided upon, despite constant discussion. If this AfD is moving to arguments about WP:Notability then my stance changes. Mike33 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD was raised about a content dispute and the direction/steering of the article. If this AfD is about notability, then please see Talk:Frosted Flakes discussion about the frosties kid were raised 5 weeks ago after constant vandalism to the site. Mike33 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. AFD is not the place to resolve content disputes. AFD is an invitation for comments on whether or not an article should be deleted, yes, but it is not a Request For Comment, which is, I think, what Toffile meant in his comment above. If issues relating to this article could not be resolved on the article's talk page, it's time to go to the next step in dispute resolution. But Picraft's nom, combined with some of his comments on the article's talk page immediately before he nominated the page, suggest that, as Mboverload said, he nominated the page because he was displeased with the way the discussion was going. [5] [6] See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. This is why I and a few other editors have voted for a speedy keep - this is an out-of-process nomination.
Editors are always free to suggest deletion for concerns other than those raised in the nomination. The most common deletion vote is 'per nom,' but that doesn't mean that every deletion vote must agree with the nominator's reasoning. If the article is deleted, it won't matter who supported what course of action and why, so if you think the article should be deleted, and so does Toffile, why does it matter if you don't agree on the reason? -- Vary | Talk 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I feel a little foolish now. User:Piecraft:Piecraft and Jum4 had disputes with several admins about RV to the point where 5 admins were involved and the article was locked for a week. it sat as 3 lines, which could have sat on any article and nobody would have noticed them. The last frosties kid article was a speedy delete on july 7th. (i was not involved with that and neither was Jum4, who started this present article on july 8th) My only involvement with the article has been on the talk page or RV when spurious unsourced comments and sections have been added. Prior to the locking, the article was constantly vandalised like Frosted Flakes, some guy even posted me with a test3 on my user page. AfD is probably not the right way to have dealt with the matter. But if the article were to be deleted because I voted because I agreed Per nom then it would greatly matter to me if it was deleted as a matter of copyvio or notability, which haven't been largely discussed. But thanks User Talk VARY for the explanation about how AfD works. Mike33 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, the article has been put up for deletion not for content dispute, but for the fact that at the time I put it up for deletion the article no longer referred to the subject of title that the article should have been discussing. It's all very well to go on about how we should have discussed it on the talk page or resolved it on dispute resolution, but bear in mind I was the one who had already requested admins to lock this article down when the article was being carelessly reverted and "vandalised" to the extent of going nowhere. And when the article was once again changed to the revisions of 14:01, 28 July 2006 which if anything were already considered to be acceptable by other users. If such an article was to be acceptable it would need to be more than a pointless stub relating information about an ad and the jingle when it is supposed to be relating to THE FROSTIES KID. Wikipedia is not a repository for pointless articles to take up space, now if I need to once again repeat my reasons for nom then you seriously need to check up on the regulatins yourself. This nomination is not about notability but the fact that the article is pointless and of no use. Piecraft 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Move and Stub . "Useless article" is no excuse for blasting the article straight. Then, all stubs would be gone. How about this: move it to They're Gonna Taste Great! (advert)', and write about the advert, it's content, audience and audience reaction. MrD 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was not originally a stub, and the stub that you are relating to did not have any room for expansion, so please leave your assumptions aside when misinformed. The fact that I branded the article "useless" was for those following reasons. Thank you. Piecraft 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Easy now, I was referring to granting it Stub status after, as you suggested, removing any unverifiable information and beginning afresh. MrD 01:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Scott[edit]

The fine people of Wakefield, Massachusetts chose him as their selectman, but his only other claim to fame is that he is one of the Republicans vying for the honor of being trounced by Ted Kennedy this fall. He is not even the nominee yet and, as a mere candidate whose only prior service was on a smallish city's board of selectmen, fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. However, it is commendable that "a strong sense of civic duty was instilled in Kevin from a very young age by his father Jim Scott, who ... to this day is still one of the first people to talk to if a candidate is serious about winning an election." JChap (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just hearsay in the article. no solid facts presented. --Ageo020 01:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is clearly promotional in tone. A selectman is not notable. A candidacy is not notable. Especially not a candidacy for a primary. Especially not the Republican primary in Massachusetts. If the article is kept it needs a radical POV-ectomy and careful watching, since there is at least a possibility of campaign staff involvement in the editing of the article. I note too that the article cites no sources inline, and the only sources mentioned, external links, are Scott's campaign site, and a site which merely presents politician's stated views (i.e. essentially self-authored); in the case of an intrinsically controversial topic, this kind of site can't be considered to meet reliable source guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I very rarely say "per" anyone, but per Dpbsmith. Geogre 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When he wins the primary for a Senate seat, he'll be deserving of an article, not until.Lesqual 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, last I heard this was America and anyone was allowed to run for office. I didn't realize one had to have a "claim to fame" to run. Also, I believe the original Wikipedia article was very much "stating the facts" in a non-promotional way. Then, certain individuals from the Chase campaign made their way onto this site and altered the article to show Kevin in a negative light. Let us not forget how this battle began. 10:19, 28 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.17.119 (talk • contribs)

Comment This is not America. This is the Internet. There are contributors from around the world that make up Wikipedia. --DarkAudit 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone may be allowed to run for office, but you have to be notable to have a biography on Wikipedia. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I note that the nomination and comments above are based on a version of the article that was significantly altered (arguably, vandalized) by a pro-Scott partisan 65.96.17.119 on July 28th. I just reversed that user's changes - AGAIN; he/she did the same thing on July 27th, which I reverted. So yes, what was there was highly promotional and unsourced, but it wasn't the "real" article. John Broughton 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"His lack of speaking ability as well as the fact he was a registered Democrat until 2001 are two factors that cost him the endorsement of his party at the state convention in April and are likely to cost him the primary in September, according to state GOP insiders" Sir, please explain to me how his "lack of speaking ability" is a fact. That is a matter of opinion, YOUR opinion. Also, please site your sources for saying that he is likely to lose the primary in September "according to state GOP insiders". Your information is highly partisan and opinionated, and appears to be written in an effort to form a "smear campaign" against Kevin. Until you can write a reasonable article that doesn't take your own personal opinion and try to pass it off as fact, I will continue to edit this article as I see fit. 16:40, 28 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.67.124 (talk • contribs)

For the record: (1) I did NOT write those words, and they are NOT my opinion. I personally don't care whether Scott wins or loses the Republican nomination; (2) You just deleted the ENTIRE campaign section in the Kevin Scott article, not just the words you just cited, even though the rest of the section was clearly NPOV (and I just reverted your edit, which was vandalism); (3) Discussions about text in an article belong on the talk/discussion page of the article, not on a project page about deleting the article. I will not respond further, here, to such postings, but will be happy to do so at Talk:Kevin Scott. Please post there. John Broughton 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Even though Scott went to a large number of GOP town committee meetings all through the fall of 2005 and winter of 2006, his lack of speaking ability[citation needed] as well as the fact he was a registered Democrat until 2001{[citation needed}} are two factors that cost him the endorsement of his party at the state convention in April and are likely to cost him the primary in September, according to state GOP insiders.[citation needed]" This entire paragraph is based entirely on heresay and is written in such a way that was quite possibly intended to intentionally "smear" Mr. Scott.
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO Bucketsofg✐ 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major party contender in a Senate race. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ford Bell[edit]

Otherwise non-notable candidate for DFL nomination for US Senate from Minnesota. The party has already endorsed his opponent and his chances of getting the nomination in the primary are slim-to-none. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A candidate at this point. He has no current elected office. He sounds like an interesting cat, but he hasn't achieved a place on the national stage yet. Geogre 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per geogre --130.216.191.84 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See Wikipedia:Candidates and elections for proposed guidelines about candidates. If there is an article on this election itself, then the candidate's info should be merged there. "Articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Scorpiondollprincess 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as per Geogre. wikipediatrix 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Bucketsofg✐ 23:40, 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. nn-band vanity. --Madchester 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripping woah[edit]

Contested prod. My first thought was that this can't possibly be serious, but even if they are, they're still a non-notable local band with a misspelled name who are apparently only going to exist for another month. Opabinia regalis 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No notability asserted, and entire text is lifted from their Myspace site [7]. --Joelmills 01:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:BAND. --Satori Son 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A Shaggs for a new century, no doubt. They fail the MUSIC guidelines and will look back on all this and laugh and laugh some day. Geogre 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stay in school, kids. --Xrblsnggt 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Woah? No. --ThatBajoranGuy 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain This page will not hurt wikipedia. It only adds to the collection of other bands in the country. This band has been around for 3 years and will remain for more than a month. This page was lifted from myspace with permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.73.18 (talk • contribs)
    • They hadn't achieved notability within those three years - what makes you think they will achieve it in the remaining month? ViridaeTalk 08:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why does every two-bit local band think everyone wants to read about them. ViridaeTalk 08:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Viridae. --Merovingian - Talk 08:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow, a WP:MUSIC violation? Scrub with gasoline and cast into the flames. WilyD 13:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. If verifiable sources can be cited to establish notability, I'd consider changing my position. Scorpiondollprincess 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, arguably speediable for lack of assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND and WP:V. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popular at their high school? Article doesn't claim notability outside thier home town. --Transfinite 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. EVula 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, raze to the ground, and salt the earth so that nothing will ever grow here again. VoiceOfReason 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dude, we have a Wikipedia page! Sweet! -Colonial One 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, person who wrote the article, but Wikipedia isn't the place for promoting your band. Good luck in the future... Cheers, RelentlessRouge 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mikeeilbacher 20:15, 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. Yanksox 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodontic Associates[edit]

Contested prod. User has put some effort into expanding this article but it's still not clear why this is distinct from the hundreds of other dental practices with this name. Used to be a short ad, and now it reads like a long ad. Opabinia regalis 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - you're right; it does read like an ad. - Richardcavell 01:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richardcavell. Also lists non-notable people. --Tuspm(C | @) 02:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like and ad, the article uses "well known" to decribe the practice, and it is 100% cruft! Adam 1212 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete There is nothing about this article that is not blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Almost all content copied from: http://www.orthodonticassoc.com/doctors.html . Medtopic 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable, using WP as billboard. NawlinWiki 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not notable. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Bucketsofg✐ 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simple adcopy for a common dental/orth practice. With some resumes thrown in. Kuru talk 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , it is both vanity and advertising. -Colonial One 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no demonstrable claim to notability. Some medical practice groups may have real claims to notability (famous clients, writeups in national publications), but this one is nowhere near the bar. Sertrel 23:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Tan Fire of 2006[edit]

Not notable. I checked to see if this had made the news (Outside of San Tan), and it has now(Typo- has NOT). Therefore, it is not notable enough to warrent its own page. Gekedo 23:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC) This listing was incomplete. Yomangani 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The statement that "I checked to see if this had made the news (Outside of San Tan), and it has now." [8] doesn't justify deletion. If the event has been reported on in the national news media, this would suggest notability, not non-notability. John254 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John.Delete, because it hasn't made any headlines. I didn't realize that was a typo at first. -- Bp28 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm tempted to think that the nom's sentence has a typo, and s/he meant to say "I checked to see if this had made the news, and it has not." Maybe I'm wrong in reading it that way, but I could only find one news reference on Google[9], and that's only a local news channel's report. -- H·G (words/works) 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - see

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertLiving (talk • contribs) (Note: This is the article's author. -- H·G (words/works) 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Merge into the article on the plant if we have one, it was not an event of national or lasting significance.--Peta 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It was regionally significant, but it doesn't appear to have had national import or to have created long term effects that will require historical explanation. Geogre 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-noteworthy event per Google News and other media searches. The sentence in the nomination was probably a typo. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not here to document everything that happens in your local town. Hell our local (and only) pub burnt down - do you think I made an article on that? ViridaeTalk 08:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete While yes, it has been documented, the only reason it's even of local interest is that people wondered what the black smoke on the horizon is. One of many transformers blew, the plant continued to function normally, no power was lost anywhere. We have no article for the plant (or all but one of its ten or so sisters in the area). Non Notable to the core.
  • Comment Hem...put 'has now' down to a typo on my part. At the time, I was intending to type 'has not' --Gekedo 12:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... no enduring encyclopedic importance. WP:NOT a list of every single explosion in every single town. --Kinu t/c 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with newspaper sources, all fires are not automatically notable. wikipediatrix 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am from nearby Chandler. I saw the smoke, but KSAZ-TV gave me the news first. -TrackerTV 19:48, 28 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 CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Trigger plot[edit]

Article was created before we realized that a full plot summary should be posted anyway on Chrono Trigger for the comprehensive requirement of FA. --Zeality 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The content has been merged to Chrono Trigger, and there's no reason to keep this page as a redirect. John254 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and John254. Maxamegalon2000 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7; author has requested deletion. Other authors' contributions have been minor.[10] -- H·G (words/works) 02:22, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVA MD[edit]

  • Revised I've taken out all product and background information in an effort to conform to guidelines. --Islandtech 17:00, 29 July 2006

Advertising and non-notable per WP:CORP -Bogsat 00:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not an ad. There is no advertising language in the entry. I carefully reviewed the guidelines before submission (pasted below). I also checked to see if Clinique and other skin-care companies had entries before creating the page. There is nothing on this page that isn't true, there is no marketing language, and this is a real company. A new company, but it is real. All information is verifiable.

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic --Islandtech 17:00, 28 July 2006

  • Delete Spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising, if not spam. The article says that the products were used (backstage, I guess) on the TV show, but not that they were featured, identified by name, or even that the brand was used specifically. It appears to be marketing only. Geogre 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ava Shamban. Medtopic 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamvertisement. Bucketsofg✐ 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Medtopic. Ava Shamban is certainly notable, but unfortunately, searches for AVA MD turn up very little information, reviews, or availability other than direct. If it reaches distribution at a major regional/national chain, then it will be notable. Sertrel 00:00, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 11:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Fidelis College, Lucknow[edit]

I'm also nominating St. fidelis college, as it is about the same educational institution. May these articles survive the AfD the should be merged. The school mentioned in the articles is middle school not a high-school. Hence, I suggest this be deleted by the policy that wikipedia is not a web directory (of schools in this case). -- Koffieyahoo 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Article includes name of Past principals and old and famous teachers which is not relevant. It gives no info on the school at all. looks like some student wrote it. --Ageo020 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article, it does sound like what would be the equivalent of a high school in India. It really would be nice to keep this article to reduce systemic bias. The question though is whether it's verifiable. I think it can be. Keep if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per JYolkowski this is a high school, despite the nominator stating otherwise. I agree that including schools from India in wikipedia help to fight systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find this phrasing on the border of a personal attack, as if I only vote delete on non-western high-schools (which is not the case). Having said that, disregarding the text in the article which is not sourced by of the links in the article the only thing I can go on wrt to the status of the institution is this: [11], which mentions that the school is a minor institution and that's not a high-school in my book (please say so if I'm wrong). -- Koffieyahoo 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what you are talking about with the suggestion of a personal attack. I have no idea how or what you vote on (nor do I care). The link you provide clearly states: "The medium of instruction from K.G. I to Class XII is English, Hindi is a compulsory subject." This schools is Kindergarten through Grade 12, using North American terms.--Nicodemus75 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a fairly anonymous institution that happens to not be in the US. It's not too much to ask that people write about the culturally significant features of their nations, and making excuses for such articles based solely upon exoticism is a confirmation of systemic bias. Geogre 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JYolkowski, although additional references would be nice. Silensor 04:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some references exist; I'll fix the formatting now. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some work but worthy enough of own article, in consideration of strong precedent to include schools.--Auger Martel 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per JYolkowski Dlyons493 Talk 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a stub. It was just created yesterday. Give it some time. --Usgnus 14:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you say the same if I wrote a stub about my house? Or my cat? The article is not nominated because it's a stub, it's nominated because the subject is fundamentally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However much time this article is given, and however wonderful a description of an ordinary school it becomes, it will still be a description of an ordinary school, and encyclopedia articles are not the same thing as school prospectuses. — Haeleth Talk 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your house and your cat would presumably fail WP:V, this institution does not.--Nicodemus75 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — At first I thought this school was too small, but I tracked down an Indian annual report from 2003-2004 that says they have 1500 students. Based on that and the current page, I think this meets my personal criteria for notability. The St. fidelis college page could be merged here then redirected. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merged. Can't redirect until Afd is finished. --Usgnus 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; even in India, it's just another ordinary school, doing a wonderful job of equipping children for life, but doing so in the same way as uncountable schools worldwide. — Haeleth Talk 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears this is a comprehensive or high school. Either one is notable. Erechtheus 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one and redirect the miscapitalized one. A nice start here! Jacqui★ 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Schools are always notable. What better place than an encyclopedia for a parent looking for neutral information about a school for his kid. We have many featured articles about schools and this could be one too in the future -- Lost 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category:High schools in the United States seems to suggest that being "just another ordinary school" is no bar to being considered notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Arvind 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The school strength is more than 2000 students and 70 teachers. It is a prominent high school in the city of Lucknow and it deserves a page on wikipedia. --punni7um
  • Keep Clearly a notable institution. Piccadilly 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a school. Schools are always notable as said above. This has been established by the School Project. End of discussion. Orangehead 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by the nominator. I'm starting to find this quite amusing: I as the nominator didn't mention anything about the notability of the school and neither did anyone of the people who suggested delete. However, most of the people in support of keeping the article do so on the basis that the school is notable. I cannot conclude anything other than that they haven't read what was written before they stated their suggestion of what to do with this article, which goes explicitly against the instructions that accompany AfDs. Hence, for this reason and also for the reason that notability isn't part of the set criteria for articles about schools, I strongly urge the closing nominator the disregard all the "keeps" based solely on notability. -- Koffieyahoo 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Koffieyahoo, may I request you to elaborate on the reason for your nomination then. You had written a reason about it being a primary school, which you have since struck. You point to WP:NOT which is very generic. There are many other school articles here. Can you explain how this one fits into WP:NOT and the others dont? -- Lost(talk) 03:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You provide a non-argument for inclusion, every article should be evaluated for its own merit. However, all the other almost empty school articles which basically only provide the location of the school plus some info on former head masters/teachers and the curriculum shouldn't be here either for exactly the same reason, but it is "not done" in this community to nominate them all at once. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I understand this correctly, the article is up on AFD because its a stub? Weren't most featured articles started as stubs at one point of time? If having very little info is the reason for afd, I would still recommend keeping the article to allow time for organic growth. -- Lost(talk) 04:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It's a directory entry, and, yes, currently also a stub. Moreover, at the moment it also lacks any references to any non-trivial published works, which is extemely important in the context of any encyclopedia. Also, AfDs are about the current merits of articles, not about what they can potentially be in the future. -- Koffieyahoo 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Update: If the existence of the school is in question, here's a reliable source (Govt of India website) mentioning the school as being affiliated to ICSE [12] -- Lost(talk) 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not worried at all about the existence of the school, what I am worried about is getting the article above the level of a directory entry. Personally, I don't see that this will happen by the simple lack of reliable, verifiable sources on any other information added. That's also why I sent it to AfD and have not just tagged it appropriately. I thought this would have been clear implicitly, but apparently not. -- Koffieyahoo 08:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please article looks good and is not a directory entry Yuckfoo 23:02, 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 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhoKatSargam.com[edit]

Non-notable website, failes WP:WEB. Jacek Kendysz 00:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WEBSITE IS TIGHT[edit]

--Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:51, 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 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Lewis[edit]

Failed candidate for Republican nom for US Senate who also fails WP:BIO (although his military service is commendable); I would make a snide comment here, but he was in the Rangers and they are trained to kill with their bare hands JChap (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confused I think the article is written by someone who knew this guy, but it's not a vanity article since it doesn't praise his qualities. Also this guy has won a lot of medals in the army but it is to be noted that most of army medals are just won 'if u serve in Iraq' --Ageo020 01:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and the article is unsourced. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Peta 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He was a candidate who didn't win the nomination. That puts him in non-exclusive company. Geogre 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was a Republican candidate from West Virginia that couldn't win his party's nomination. If Jay Wolfe isn't notable enough for an article, what does it make this guy? (John Raese has achieved notability outside of his Senate run.) --DarkAudit 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Not notable. Scorpiondollprincess 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable and not verified. Bucketsofg✐ 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I say go ahead and delete it. The article itself was written by somebody who worked for his campaign (I heard it was a volunteer who tried his hardest to become a paid staffer...) Hiram Lewis is dead politically in the state of West Virginia, and I do not believe he can re-invent himself. I do know a few of his staffers that did work on the campaign and he still owes them money, and they don't think very highly of Mr. Lewis. Why do I think this article should be deleted? Simple; he lost his race to take on Robert C Byrd, and is no longer relevant to this race.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermetism[edit]

non-encyclopedic POV split of Hermeticism. Hermeticism is the accepted nomenclature. Hermetism is occult jargon from the works of Manly P. Hall. Really, Atlantean *cough* —Hanuman Das 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is part of a blitzkrieg attack Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blitzkrieg_Tactics_to_push_POV. Hermetism was an article before Hall's citaitons ever made it in, it is used to describe the movement prior to it's renaissance ressurection, which I can cite. False allegations.KV(Talk) 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • TINC --Xrblsnggt 03:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. WP:V requires "that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." This book is published by "H.S. Crocker Company", not self-published, lauded as a classic, publisher site is at http://www.hscrocker.com/. Read up on the issue that I have cited to show what is going on with this. Rather than discuss this, there are three editors attempting to throw so many things at articles that I am the primary contributor of that discussion on my part is impossible.KV(Talk) 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further Comment. Hermetism and Hermeticism refer to two different eras. The original followers were called Hermetists, following Hermetism, the philosophy or religion or movement of Hermes. After the Corpus Hermeticum was rediscovered by the West in the 15th century, the new followers were called Hermeticists, because they followed not directly the teachings of Hermes, but of what was Hermetic. Hermetism is the precursor to Hermeticism, according to scholars. People call this junk history, but whereas I have added verifiable citations from several sources, the attackers are attempting to violate WP:NPOV and actually performing OR by deciding that they know off hand more about the subject, and lacking citations, they attack citations from reputable sources!KV(Talk) 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. user:999 had proded this as OR. I prod2'ed it. I've given enough information on the articles talk page to conclude that its OR, and KV realzed it, and wished to fix it. Instead, he caused a revert war. I'd like to ask that a careful review of the talk page be made before deciding. SynergeticMaggot 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Wrong article, I was thinking about Hermeticism and other thought systems which is going to be up for AfD soon. So delete per Zeusnoos's talking points. SynergeticMaggot 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an odd article. Who coined the word "Hermetism" instead of Hermeticism? The writer of Kybalion? The sources are not scholarly. hscrocker is not an academic publisher (compare with Brill and university presses). Manly P. Hall is an important and interesting figure in the history of occultism in the twentieth century, but his work is not referenced as authoritative by scholars. Do a search in a university library journal and book database on ancient Hermetic scholarship - you will find names like Walter Scott, Festiguiere, and Garth Fowden instead. Zeusnoos 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk history. --Xrblsnggt 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Philosophical equivalent of errorspace, I guess...Philsophosquatting? Original research is the deletion criterion. Although there are references, they're not cred(it)ible. Geogre 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. `'mikka (t) 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the comments above. Philosophosquatting...there's too much of that on Wikipedia. Byrgenwulf 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hall was certainly inventive, but is not a reliable source for actual documentable history. Ekajati 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xrblsnggt, "junk history" sums it up perfectly. -999 (Talk) 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this a WP:POVFORK? I'm not sure I understand enough of this article (or it's history with sister articles). My concern is that this seems to qualify under WP:POVFORK. Can anyone elucidate? Scorpiondollprincess 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Let's look at just the first two sentences. "Hermetism was the religion of the philosophical elite of Ancient Egypt. In the ancient days, every pagan nation (i.e. those of the classical pantheons: Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Nordic, Druidic, etc) had two religions." We have two outrageous claims there, neither of which are referenced, nor do they accord with generally accepted knowledge or scholarly understanding of historical facts. If not a pure WP:POVFORK, it seems to simply be an outlet for an "alternative" understanding of Hermeticism based on the work of an oft-read but low "scholarly integrity" author: Hall seems to be after the ultimate "synthesis" of all "mystery teachings".
Personally, I think hermeticism is bunk in its entirety (after all, it was comprehensively and conclusively debunked by Casaubon during the Renaissance). However, I accept that it is an important part of Western tradition and hence merits a neutral article. The junk historical findings of a Diabolical, on the other hand, don't merit an entire, originally researched article which puts his slanted viewpoint across as fact.
That's just my personal, skeptically slanted reading of it, of course. But I hope it at least answered your question! Byrgenwulf 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Causabon's debunking has been debunked in the 1940's, and that only has to do with the age of the Corpus Hermeticum. And to reply to the first user, no Hermetism refers to the precursor of Hermeticism, and it is well documented. I have done more research and this article does need to be tended to, sure, but it needs to be tended to, not deleted. Hermetism is documented outside of Manly P. Hall, and I have done extensive research and there are other viewpoints which I have now found verification of and can add in. The proposor of this AfD decided not to find that same evidence, but rather remove what was already there in order to support his POV.KV(Talk) 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Casaubon's research was not "debunked"; it was criticised, but as far as I can make out, the criticism were not valid. Moreover, if the Corpus Hermeticum was made up in the early centuries AD, then it cannot reflect the teachings of some ancient figure.
Casaubon notwithstanding, there is absolutely no evidence that I am aware of with regards to there being "dual" religions in the Nordic tradition; admittedly I am an amateur when it comes to Germanic philology, though. Also, the Egyptian pantheon (and Hell, the Egyptian theology)does not fit into the same group as the Indo-European ones. That's a simple historical fact.
Those are just a few of the concerns to do with the first two sentences. I could carry on about the whole article, but have no desire to do so. The bottom line is that there is no reason for it to stay, unless some pretty convincing, scholarly (read: reputable, serious) evidence comes up that says that Hermetism is different to Hermeticism. Byrgenwulf 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Causabon had his theory based upon the fact that the Greek text would date back to the 1st or 2nd century, the Greek used. However, in the Nag Hammadi find, an older version of one of the books of the Corpus Hermeticum was found, written in Coptic, showing that the idea that the book had to originate in Greek even was flawed. It's similar to looking up the New King James Version of the Bible and decide that Genesis was written about 1950. The removal of this article is nothing more than a POV push.KV(Talk) 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the Coptic Hermetic text bares similarity in form (question/answer) but not in content. The material in the Greek Hermetica contains some Middle Platonic and Stoic elements. The fact that the Coptic is not pre-Hellenistic means there is little way of determining that this is indigenous pre-Hellenistic Egyptian. It may have been an Egyptian's competitive attempt to take back Thoth from the Greeks. See my comments below. Who invented the word "Hermetism" by the way? Zeusnoos 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. Thats odd KV. If Hermeticism sprang from Hermetism, then shouldnt the definition say this? It merely says its a system based on and the adherence to things Hermetic. Its my understanding that if you were correct, then the definition would say origins of Hermeticism or something of a simular wording. Also note that KV is trying to get this Afd blocked here: [13]SynergeticMaggot 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Miriam Webster isn't the best source on words that are rarely used and understood. It took me 3 months of research before I saw a book that made that clear. At that point I began editting Hermetism.KV(Talk) 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. A definition is not the best source no, but neither is Manly P. Hall either. SynergeticMaggot 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have more sources now that I could add, if I had the actual opportunity to work with people one article at a time. But Hall did do extensive research. KV(Talk) 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment It doesn't matter if Hall did extensive research. I have read Hall's work which generally receives little or no attention from scholars of antiquity and renaissance studies. He makes unsubstantiated connections and generalizations about antiquity. Most scholars up into the 1980's thought that Hermeticism was a Late Hellenistic (Greek and not indigenous Egyptian) that saw its revival with Ficino in the Renaissance. Garth Fowden, however, in the Egyptian Hermes, has shown that there are two types of Hermeticism that he defined as technical and philosophical, the philosophical forming a little bit later around the second century CE. The technical Hermetica includes alchemy, some bare-bones astrology (Sun/Moon stuff) and magic, and dates as early as the third or second century BCE. Works were attributed to the fictional character/god Thrice-great Hermes to give them some weight and respectability. This was a common practice. Fowden's research has contributed to changing the scope and antiquity of Hermeticism by making such distinctions and by covering far more material than the Corpus (which was the late philosophical Hermetica). Today, the question scholars debate is whether or not there is some indigenous non-Greek Egyptian Hermetic tradition. The recent research on Demotic texts shows that there is in fact another thread that may be indigenous, but the content has very few connections to the Greek philsophical Hermetica. What I mean by indigenous is that it is Egyptian, but Egypt was Hellenistic during the time these texts were written, so it can't escape syncreticism. Please see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2006/2006-05-19.html for an example of the type of scholarship that should be used for these articles. This is the real Book of Thoth and not some Crowleyque modern concoction. Zeusnoos 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. Thanks for the comments, btw! It seems there's potentially a problem with Reliable Sources here as well. Article also seems to skirt WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But the main problem is WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia already has an article on Hermeticism (very well-souced, in fact). This article just presents an alternative spin on Hermeticism. Delete. Scorpiondollprincess 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hermeticism as a likely spelling mistake. Jkelly 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and redirect per Jkelly Bucketsofg✐ 23:46, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McMahon[edit]

I created this article and claim authorship. The article was prodded by Shimgray with the text: This article does not establish encyclopedic notability; being convicted of doing nasty things to animals, with a one-year prison sentence is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for an encyclopedia article; neither is ownership of an obscure finance firm. There is no evidence given for his single crime being a particular cause célèbre of the time, or having any effect on contemporary law, culture or criminology.

I didn't notice that it was prodded before it was deleted. I have restored and would like to contest the prod by bringing it here. - Richardcavell 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are many more criminals who have much more heinous crimes. i don't think why this guy should have an article --Ageo020 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete petty criminal.--Peta 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't break any Wikipedia policy. It is verified (external links are the references), is factual, NPOV and not original research. "Notability" is not a policy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But WP:NOT is, and he fails WP:BIO.--Peta 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and is WP:BIO policy either? No it isn't. It's not even a real guideline, it's a guideline to help define whether or not it is notable and should be affected by WP:N, which is also not policy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mere compliance with the letter of verifiability &c shows that something is able to be included; it does not, and cannot, automatically show that it has to be be included. It's a crime, and it's a nasty crime, but it's not important, it's not significant, there is nothing which makes it worth including in an encyclopedia. We do have the right to use editoral common sense in addition to policies. Shimgray | talk | 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stomach churning but unique and well sourced. I don't know if there categories for bestiality and animal cruelty but he would serve as a prime example for both. Agne 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • two newspaper articles is "well sourced"?--ZayZayEM 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this case got publicity, I don't think that it is notable enough to warrant an article. It is problematic under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy states "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." I don't think that this person is notable enough to warrant invading his privacy. Capitalistroadster 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rebecca 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why? AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. -- Synapse 10:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is a borderline case. It's a horrible story, no doubt, and shocking, and I'm sure there was considerable infamy (which means notability, in a case like this), but the question is whether the subject has become a by-word for animal cruelty or an emblem of what is wrong with the world. It is not really a prod, so the nominator has done the right thing. (By the way, that last sentence is pretty irrelevant, as the man's marijuana and speed use is unimportant, unless there is a causal connection the article does not explain.) Perhaps the best thing would be to merge the information as part of an "Infamous incidents" section of animal cruelty, with a redirect. Geogre 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that his marijuana and methamphetamine use is important, since it formed part of his courtroom defence. - [14] Richardcavell 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crime is notable: the person is not. I would suggest to delete the article, but include sourced information (including Mr "catf***er" McMahon's name) on it in relevant articles such as zoophilia, bestiality and animal cruelty. Brendan McMahon could then form a redirect to the appropriate article. Vizjim 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Geogre. Serving a year in jail for what is ultimately a rather petty series of crimes is not enough for an encyclopedia of one's own. Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the story attracted international coverage. If it were only a story in Australia (where it happened) and New Zealand (where the guy's from) I'd vote to toss, but that's not the case. CNN has an article on it[15], South African News24 wrote about it[16], the Alaskan Anchorage Press had coverage [17], the Manila Times of the Phillipines wrote about the story [18] and a google news search shows The Washington Times did a piece on it as well.[19] A story that gets coverage in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the USA and the Phillipines is notable enough for my tastes. At the very least, a merge and redirect, but I think keep's a better call. Vickser 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the news articles in the non-Australian and non-New Zealand press (the subject was NZ-born) - all these articles appear to be reprints or rewrites of international newswire articles and NOT original journalism by foreign journalists. The CNN article is sourced to Associated Press. The Manila Times article is sourced to Agence France Presse. The South Africa article seems very much like a cut-down version of the AFP story. The Washington Times link appears to be broken, but its likely that its a wire story too. Newswire stories (which by the nature of their platform, carry many more minor stories than newspaper) are simply lifted from a online computer feed and required minimal effort by a newspaper editor. If it was a really substantial story, international journalists would not just be doing copying wire stores. (oh and the Anchorage article is a brief paragraph in a just-for-fun "News of the Weird" column). Bwithh 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vickser --Guinnog 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; significant news coverage in Australia and internationally, in any case it passes the J14B notability test. --
  • Delete Not encyclopedically notable as a criminal ("drug-crazed person kills animals" is not particularly unique or remarkable). There are many, many stories that get coverage in multiple places in international news media but which are not encyclopedically notable (this one is a "news of the weird" article which has shock value for journalists, and seems to have disseminated internationally through newswires, not original foreign journalism). (And incidentally, the current article content has various inaccuracies. (The sentence was 16 months, up for parole in 12. The single bestiality charge was dropped for lack of evidence. The article also fails to mention the subject's psychosis from a heavy drug habit)). Okay as a brief mention in the infamous incidents section of animal cruelty article. Bwithh 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Vickser (JROBBO 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage in Australian media of this character. Lankiveil 05:38, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii vs. PS3[edit]

Unencyclopedic subject, inherently POV, content more appropriate for Wii and PlayStation 3 articles. Dancter 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really wanted to speedy it, but I couldn't find a justification. I'd figured the original author would take off the prod tag right away. --Maxamegalon2000 12:48, 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 11:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Troia McFarland[edit]

non-notable candidate for Republican nomination for US Senate, other candidate has party's endorsement, mostly known for claiming that Hillary is spying on her by flying helicopters over her house and peeking in her windows. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too many non notable senate nominees are there in AFD. delete all of them. --Ageo020 01:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ageo020 nominate them and I'll vote delete if they are all up to this standard. ViridaeTalk 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The men in black told me that I had to vote to delete, lest the black helicopters land on my apartment building and send me for reprogramming. (Actually, it's because she's a nominee. Her current position is scary/explanatory, but not of a high enough profile for her to pass BIO.) Geogre 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The proposed wikipedia policy on candidates and elections calls for using a redirect rather than deleting the article. [Full disclosure: a redirect is technically a "keep"; any editor can reverse it. It would be nice if there were a "hard redirect" resulting from an AfD, whose reversal would require some extra effort/justification, but that's not the case now.] John Broughton 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's not the worst solution, but it is only proposed for now, for the very reason you indicate. One of the ulterior motives of seeking deletion of candidacy pages is that they attract devoted proponents and opponents. A mere redirect leaves the temptation open to infinitely piddle on and recreate a page when the candidate or opponent needs "just that little extra push up Google" or "any free advertising we can get." Geogre 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:18, 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 keep. As the CEO of a major company and a candidate for the US Senate, McGavick demonstrates sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.. alphaChimp laudare 02:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGavick[edit]

Candidate for Senate whose only other claim to fame is that he is the former CEO of Safeco Insurance Company; fails WP:BIO. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Safeco had a $4.19B revenue and is a major company, especially in Washington state. A recent CEO is certainly notable, and his Senate run only increases his notability. I believe he should be viewed as a former CEO first and candidate second. SliceNYC 01:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with SliceNYC. - Richardcavell 01:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Easily meets WP:BIO, and would even if he were merely a Senate candidate and not the former CEO of one of the largest companies in Washington. VoiceOfReason 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above reasons. --Bobblehead 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as a former CEO of a major corporation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly notable as former CEO but also the Washington State 2006 Senate race is a highly watched one for Senate control. Agne 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, CEOs come and go frequently. According to this site, Europe and United States CEOS last an average of 2.5 and 4.5 years respectively. Companies that have been in business for a while are likely to have a ton of ex-CEOs. Also, people running for office are rarely notable for doing so. Again, there is just a huge number of such individuals. For the U.S. House of Representatives, there are probably 700 to 1,500 failed candidates every two years, more if you do not count those who do not get past the primaries (the large range is due to the fact that smaller parties do not have a candidate for every seat). Also, we have had elections for the House for over two hundred years, although there were fewer Representatives in the past. Now, think about all of the failed candidates in other countries and countries that no longer exist, from the founding of the country to the current day or to the country's demise. Finally, some people want to include failed state, county and even mayoral candidates, which would be an even bigger number of people. -- Kjkolb 08:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Kjkolb makes a very strong argument, but the super-rich are fairly uncommon and tend to go about their business behind the shade of anonymity. The guy is too high profile for everything else in his life to be just a candidate. There are irrelevancies in the article, and the structure isn't great, but the figure himself passes. Geogre 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment McGavick's net worth is between $36M and $65M. I agree with what you said, but as far as CEOs go he isn't "super-rich." Still a high-profile guy in two fields, however. SliceNYC 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It's a sad day when $65,000,000.00 doesn't make you super rich, but I believe you. It's still far enough up there that he qualifies for the company of "people who get things and whose names the public does not know." I hate to sound populist, but it is probably worthwhile to know who those folks are, as they keep popping up in industrial and financial contexts. Geogre 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People who "get things"? Did the Money Fairy suddenly show up on McGavick's doorstep one day and hand him a big sack of rumpled $20s? For someone who "hates to sound populist", you sure are good at it. McGavick is notable by any objective standard. Were he merely a major party nominee for the Senate, he'd be notable, and were he merely the former CEO of a Fortune 500 company he'd be notable. This AfD is silly. VoiceOfReason 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you want to pick a quarrel, but I'm not really in the mood for it. I am not an expert on fairy largesse. I feel sure, though, that you will find someone to have an argument with, if you keep trying. Geogre 19:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as former CEO of major company. NawlinWiki 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The combination of the senate race and the recent CEOship of a major company is notable. Vickser 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though he is at this point non notable, he probably will win the GOP senate primary. He also already has a masive campaign --Musaabdulrashid 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He did an outstanding job turning Safeco around...won't win thje senate race, but good try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.102.159 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. satsfies notability/verifiability conventions, not WP:OR. --Madchester 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkification[edit]

At best a dictdef, at worst a hopeless POV dictdef inviting edit wars. Either transwiki or delete. Wikibofh(talk) 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, more than a few articles link to this one, and a good number of Ghits pop up, indicating it's probably a relevant term. It's kind of hard to pigeonhole sociological terms like this as a dicdef--it's more like a concept worth exploring, and the article seems to be working in that direction. -- H·G (words/works) 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Widely used and referenced concept in academia - FrancisTyers · 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the word appears in over 800 books [20] - FrancisTyers · 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: A lot of words appear in books, most of them also appear in dictionaries.  ;) Wikibofh(talk) 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely worthless and basically a playground for Turcophobes. About every single sentence in the article is either completely wrong or completely biased and cherry-picked. MonsterOfTheLake 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the concept itself is quite important. It'll need to reach some kind of agreed-upon form, though, and I have my doubts that this will ever quite happen. BigHaz 03:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article itself may need to be retooled, but the concept itself is encyclopedic. WhisperToMe 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I'll reconsider my vote in a sec. WhisperToMe 03:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs are not votes. They are discussions. --Nearly Headless Nick 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are too votes. The things that decide whether articles get kept or deleted are votes. It's not that they are not discussions. But keep in mind that what ultimately decides an AFD are votes. WhisperToMe 03:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because a term is in a BBC article doesn't make it notable. We could have an article on "Swissification". This is a nelogism and not worthy of an article. It's not personal, but AfD is for what other editors think. I don't discount for a second the hard work put into this article. It doesn't go unnoticed. --mboverload@ 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Turkification" is the headline of this TIME article dating back to 1923. It's used in the context that this WP article discusses, too. I'd say this word is hardly a neologism. -- H·G (words/works) 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Turkification is used here http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI8614795/ to apply to cultural changes during the Ottoman period. WhisperToMe 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I looked at the sources before I put it up for AFD. It looked to me like all of the articles and references provided did not discuss anything that was outside the scope of either a dictdef or nelogism, which is why I put it up for deletification.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What if we turned this into a Wiktionary entry? WhisperToMe 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - That's what transwiki means. Wikibofh(talk) 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Not even a single logical reason to delete this article. A term used in acadenics for a long time, still in use today, in books, media, etc. Proven (without dispute) and notable examples, historic events, et cetera, et cetera! I got shocked when i saw that this article is proposed for deletion, whereas other similar articles are not (and i hope won't): Hellenization, Armenification, Albanization, Americanization, Bulgarisation, Arabization, Croatisation, Czechification, Germanisation, Italianization, Kurdification, Magyarization, Persianisation, Polonization, Ukrainization, and i can list more...! What's going on here? Deleting articles that "hurt" the patriotic feelings of some users? --Hectorian 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it weren't for the fact that it would look like WP:POINT I'd nominate them too. Having a lot of crappy articles isn't a reason to keep one. Wikibofh(talk) 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It wouldn't just look like a WP:POINT, it would indeed be. Having informative articles with sourced info is an encyclopedic way of thinking and acting... Deleting or nominating them for deletion, is not. --Hectorian 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        More than a few of the XXXization articles consist mainly of unsourced original research, not caring to properly define their topic. Not quite what I consider encyclopedic material. --LambiamTalk 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        When i saw that u decided to take a look in that article [21], i thought that it could be a good possibility for the article to be improved, although the invitation u received for this was not the most optimistic [22]. Then u voted for its deletion...:/. U may not consider the material or this and similar articles as encyclopedic, but, as u probably know by now, this is just your POV. btw, i can't understand why an article about "Turkification" causes so much trouble... Greek users (me included) heavily editted and sourced and referenced the article about Hellenization. similar things happened in Germanisation, Russification, etc. What are some users afraid of concerning this article? I know, but i guess i'll never be told about it by them... --Hectorian 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very notable sociological and cultural term used often in academia. The topic is certainly prone to controversy and it will require constant upkeep to maintain NPOV but just because an article is "difficult" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Agne 06:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to later creation of a non-OR, NPOV and verifiable (with source citations) article by the same name on cultural assimilation. --LambiamTalk 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOV is a reason for an edit, not a deletion. The term is used with some frequency and is not a new term. Some of the info is referenced, and it certainly goes beyond a dictionary definition. The page needs work, not deletion. -- CaptainManacles
  • Keep per above. bogdan 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's a lot of other assimilation articles. It may have problems with bias, but this is not a reason to delete — it's perfectly notable. Todor→Bozhinov 13:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Todor.--Aldux 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Todor. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be an established term and it also seems to have played a major role in Turkish policy. Similar policies are also included on Wikipedia (such as Westernization and Russification). The article is currently of very low quality though. Sijo Ripa 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable and could eventually become a very interesting, very good article. Vickser 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hectorian. We can't have articles such as "Czechification", "Japanification", etc. and not have this one. —Khoikhoi 03:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Czechification is a worthless stub. Japanification is about the aspiration of voluntary cultural assimilation. Both articles are completely unsourced, essentially not more than dicdefs, and not the shining example of articles that must be kept. --LambiamTalk 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just threw two names out. If you take a look at Italianization and Hellenization you will notice that those articles are quite long. The point I'm trying to make is that this, along with many other of its cousin articles are notable topics, and I personallly found the subject matter to be quite interesting. —Khoikhoi 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. -- Clevelander 11:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Hardly any other nation has treated its minories as cruelly as we Turks do! --KerimÖztürk 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. -- Per above statement. Orangehead 15:04, 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 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scourge (Book)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This book does not exist, and may never be published. Worth reconsidering once the book is out. eaolson 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with reconsideration well after book comes out and critics have reviewed it. Ansell 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unwritten book by two unknown authors, almost certainly vanity. --Stormie 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bit more wiki-coverage than even well-known books receieve. --Xrblsnggt 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This isn't The Rule of Four (which wouldn't have gotten an article before publication) and smells of buddycruft. Get a publisher, get reviews, get sales, come back. Geogre 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and currently non-extant book/story and probably vanity. 'buddycruft' works, too. Kuru talk 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most likely buddycruft or vanity. Call us when it's published. -Colonial One 13:58, 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 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J/C Moments[edit]

Fancruft/trivia list related to Spongebob Squarepants. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I think that's what I meant to say. That was a pretty stupid mistake, sorry. I probably typed that because of all the recent vandalism I've had to revert to articles about the erroneously listed television series. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Summarizing is optional, I suppose, but a stand-alone trivia article is inappropriately granular and unsearchable. Geogre 12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there somewhere this can be transwikied to? It's a good article but it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Delete. Haikupoet 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was looking all over the place for list of the j/c moments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.104.171 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Geogre. — NMChico24 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shipping and Fancruft have no reason to be listed in an encyclopedia. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, romantic pairings in telvision shows should not be included. This article would be best summarised in the Jimmy Neutron telvision show article. --DannyDaWriter 05:28, 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 deleted by Mailer diablo, but forgot to close. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric pentle[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTO, biographical article on non-notable subject. VoiceOfReason 01:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. Acyso 02:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparently a vanity submission, 2 unrelated Ghits, not able to find anything relating him to Central Party. Fails notability and probably WP:AUTO. -- H·G (words/works) 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - WP:AUTO, and no sources verifying notability. BTW, don't measure everything in "ghits", internet is not all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CP\M (talk • contribs)
  • Of course it's not all, but it's a good indicator when used in conjunction with other searches, as it was above. Nothing anywhere on the Central Party, no sources, and general notability failing coupled with that tends to seal the deal. I don't mean to rant, but I wish this didn't have to be rehashed every other time the word "Ghits" is used appropriately in an AfD discussion. -- H·G (words/works) 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this smells a lot like a hoax to me, and I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wisden17 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NawlinWiki. AgentPeppermint 20:40, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary surgery[edit]

Inane article with no content, not even suitable for a dictionary definition Acyso 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is quite obviously expandable into a great essay. It needs authors, not deletion. - Richardcavell 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richardcavell, if someone with more specific knowledge of the subject could fill in some history and whatnot, this could be a pretty good article. -- H·G (words/works) 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richardcavell. His "needs authors, not deletion" comment sums it up beautifully. Agne 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ophthalmologist redirects to Ophthalmology, Optometrist redirects to Optometry, Dentist redirects to Dentistry, etc. Perhaps Veterinary surgeon should redirect to Veterinary surgery. Medtopic 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a stub, not a dictdef. Ace of Sevens 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move veterinary surgeon to this page. It covers all the necessary as per Medtopic. JFW | T@lk 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not suitable for dictionary definition? Wow, that's a new one...and anyway Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we don't delete topics simply because they're stubs either. --Mad Max 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is room for expansion. I do not think that veterinary surgeon should be moved there. It does not talk about surgery, just about the career. Also, it is U.K. centric. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion should be based on context, not content. Even if there is no content now. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stubs should be expanded, not deleted. WilyD 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: With due respect to my fellow Wikipedians, are y'all on drugs? It's a single sentence, a predicate nominative. "The sky is that thing up there." That's not an article. It's not a stub. It's a fact, and this particular fact is a dictionary definition. One of the oldest principles of the deletion policy is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, while Wiktionary is the dictionary: do not eat disk space with duplication. This thing could be deleted under G1 as a speedy delete, and it must be deleted as a dictionary definition in the regular AfD sense. If people want an article on veterinary surgery, they should write one. Until then, a dictionary definition violates policy. Geogre 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In its current state it is a one sentence "dicdef" but this subject matter clearly has the potential to move beyond anything that is suitable for a dictionary, which is why the stub should stay here in the encyclopedia. I, personally, do not feel comfortable expanding the stub due to my utter and complete lack of knowledge in this area but looking at Google, I found a number of sites with encyclopedic content that shows me the potential of this article in the right editors hands. Like History of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University's history as a leading educator in Veterinary surgery, Veterinary wound management with items relating to surgical care, and this doesn't include all the articles that popped up recently due to interest in Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro's injury and surgery. To echo Richardcavell again, this article needs authors not deletion. Agne 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It needs authors to begin it, as there is nothing there now that is allowable by our policies. That's the problem. The amount of work the imagined and invited authors will put in is total, and yet the history will hold onto this inadequate insult of a fact as the origins? Why? What is the difference between what is there and nothing at all? What, functionally, is gained by this dictionary definition? If I were going to write on it, I would use my sneaky speedy delete super powers and then just start from scratch, as I think this kind of thing just gets in the way of an article, and it surely doesn't invite one. Geogre 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geogre, this is a case mark example of a stub. Yes, it is a humble begining but it's not insulting nor is it useless. The very purpose and benefits of stubs is that it invites authors to expand it. We have these stub categories so that someone who is knowledgeable in that field can look at the current stubs and work on expanding those within their realm of knowledge. I am an active watcher of the "Wine stub" category and I know I'm not alone. I would encourage the humble beginning of any wine related article because if it's taged with a "wine stub", eventually someone will get to it to make it into a great article. I am sure that there are those with Veterinary background who will come across this Veterinary related stub (which there needs to be a template for) and help expand the article. Agne 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Veterinary surgery is a subset of Veterinary medicine, which is already a rather short article, so there's no need as of yet to expand Veterinary surgery into its own article. wikipediatrix 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stub. Wikipedia:Stub defines a stub as "not so short as to be useless ... which generally means three to ten sentences". This is one trivial sentence that explains nothing not self-evident from the article title. Redirect to one of the several vetinary articles that actually exist. — Haeleth Talk 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Veterinary medicine until this article has a reason to exist. wikipediatrix 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put it to sleep; i.e., delete. Perhaps redirect to Veterinary medicine. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As a veterinarian I may be a little biased, but Medtopic has expanded this article very nicely, and if you give me a couple of days I will do the same. This article could be a good way to show the difference between human and veterinary surgery. For instance, it could give detail on the most common surgeries performed by veterinarians and some of the different anesthetic and surgical techniques required for work on animals. --Joelmills 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice additions Joel (and Medtopic too). It helps to give life to the potential of this article. I would encourage all those who vote delete to take another look and see what you think. Agne 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Veterinary medicine or Expand. Joelmills makes a good point above, it could be very useful and informative article. -Colonial One 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and removed the stub templates. I think we have addressed any concerns about stubbiness. --Joelmills 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, good job to all who expanded the article. Wikipedia would have had one less great article had this "useless" stub been deleted.--Mad Max 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never really put out a vote, but seeing how the article has been expanded and elaborated, I'm all for keeping it. (Nice pictures) Acyso 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though more references and sourced material would give this article a better look.Smeelgova 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed vote). I'm convinced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 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 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mondelio[edit]

No assertion of company's notability per software guidelines. Kimchi.sg 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - just another IT company - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn software company in a rather narrow sector of the market. Also, article borders on a press release. Haikupoet 23:57, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraja[edit]

Non notable company. Did get a lot of media coverage when it was founded. But company just has 11 employees and none of its products are well known. Infact the company itself is out of the limelight. Most of the article is written by unsigned users Ageo020 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting idea but currently non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept, it will need rewriting almost from scratch. As it stands, it reads like an advertisement. — Haeleth Talk 19:54, 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 as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Mandoo[edit]

From a quick Google search, I can't find anything verifying this. --Spring Rubber 02:14, 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 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeticism and other thought systems[edit]

POV essay full of original research. Cites many facts, but the conclusions are the editor's own. —Hanuman Das 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and controversial claims unreferenced. Zeusnoos 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely filled to the brim with OR. Please look over the talk page of the article where it goes into detail about all of the citations and material in the article before deciding to support the deletion or not. Also, I'd prefer that some of the material be "smerged" back to Hermeticism and Hermes. SynergeticMaggot 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd also like to add that the majority of citations are being used to lead readers into believing that there are "simularites" between Hermeticism and all of these religions/thought systems. There is not enough information to establish a connection between Hermeticism as a thought system and Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Trancendentalism, Wicca and Paganism, and Zoroastrianism. There are large paragraphs of Original Research to establish these points, and then there are very few thought systems which do have simularities, none of which appear to be established, and nothing in detail. Just weak links. Please note that the article brings up Hermetism which is also listed here for deletion and is reaching a consensus for deletion. SynergeticMaggot 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. `'mikka (t) 05:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This pretty clearly OR. Ace of Sevens 06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research perhaps, but not original thoughts. I agree with SynergeticMaggot that the purpose of the article seems to be to encourage other people to think in the way the author thinks. Foucault's Pendulum shows us why Wikipedia cannot afford this. Byrgenwulf 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not OR, it has 31 references from 12 sources. Perhaps more needs to be cited, but it is above the standards of the average Wikipedia article.KV(Talk) 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • References don't mean it isn't OR. The references, rather than stating the points from the article are the data sources on which the conclusions are based. Ace of Sevens 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If the nominator and others would be willing to work on this, the article can be improved, and even in the worst case scenario of what one views it as now, would be salvagable. The claims of OR were not explained and included claiming that cited facts were OR. The article deals with similarities and interactions between these systems, how one may have influenced the other or where they have similar beliefs, with no claim that one gave the other that belief. This is not OR, this is cited. Some is uncited, in what I considered to be uncontroversial. I can still offer citations for this, and work with the other editors to make this a good article. But there has been no attempt to work with me on this, only false accusations (where there may be actual "OR" is not what they claimed was OR) and an attempt to attack other articles to prevent me from spending time to fix this one. These are bad faith measures, and there needs to be work on this, not a simple deletion. They are taking a strong immediatist stance and I'm taking only a very moderate eventualist stance, it will be fixed eventually through work and discussion to be done immediately. I was planning on this weekend.KV(Talk) 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citations do not preclude something from being OR. For example, a PhD thesis has to be filled to the brim with both citations and original research in order to be worth a degree: citing facts from books but stringing them together in a fashion not found in those books counts as original research; indeed, that's why it's research and not "original fantasy". It's quite fine, KV if you want to work on it this weekend: this AfD will last five days. For my part, I shall change my opinion to a "keep" if at the end of the period the article is sufficiently fixed up; although I doubt by its very nature that it can be...that's why I think it should go. Byrgenwulf 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is most certainly original research trying to prove a thesis. Otherwise, it would be sufficient to add the facts to Hermeticism and/or the articles about the other "systems." Ekajati 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly OR. -999 (Talk) 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an essay title, not an encyclopedia article title. Merge any verifiable information to the appropriate articles. Jkelly 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not encyclopedic. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Cúchullain t/c 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't even tell what the article's thesis is. Is it that religions interact and cover some of the same topics? Well, duh, they are religions, of course they cover religious topics, and it is nearly inevitable that they will interact if spacial-temporally colocated and highly likely that any two comprehensive or near-comprehensive world views will have some degree of similarity. I'm way outside my fields of expertise and reliable knowledge on this specific religion, but I see no reason to believe that it is original research and User:RJHall who removed the prod tags is also unclear whether this really is OR. The article appears to have originated as a fork from Hermeticism, in which it is properly treated as a subarticle. If you go into edit mode there you get the message "This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." I'm convinced this was good material to fork from Hermeticism first as it tells us the least about Hermeticism. GRBerry 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You said: I'm convinced this was good material to fork from Hermeticism first as it tells us the least about Hermeticism.. This seems a bit strange. How can the article be good if it tells us the least about Hermeticism? Shouldnt it go into depth about Hermeticism, since this is the whole point of the article? I'm bringing this to your talk page. SynergeticMaggot 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Good" appears in the phrase "good to fork". I meant by that sentence that it was the least important material to continue to include in that main article, and thus good material to move out in order to shorten that article. GRBerry 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Synopsis I've had a reasonably extensive discussion with SynergeticMaggot, primarily on my talk page, partially on his. He clarified for me that he believes "The point of the article is trying to make it appear that Hermeticism is related to all of those religions via the name 'thought systems'." I read the article both as an RFC responder and again for this AFD and came to the conclusion that there is no significant relationship, hence I disagree with him as to whether the article is trying to make that point. GRBerry 06:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Thats why you disagree? The lead intro is only one line and says: This article outlines both similarities between Hermetism, Hermeticism, and other thought systems as well as their interactions between one another. We both agree here that there are no simularities/significant relationship! Yet the article claims it. :p SynergeticMaggot 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Sigh, I thought we'd reached mutual understanding. I guess not. I believe that there is no significant relationship, not that there are no similarities. In some of the cases there may be significant similarities (I haven't probed that deeply into all the cases), in some there are no significant similarities. Similarities and relationships are different. There can be high degrees of similarity with insignificant relationships. For two biological ways such situations can arise, see convergent evolution and evolutionary relay. I believe that there are occasional similarities, some interactions, but no significant relationships. GRBerry 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. By this rationale of hunting for similarities, let's create articles on contemporary Chinese cooking and Roman military cuisine, or the Mayan calendar and the I-Ching, or Lord of the Rings and Politics in India. Zeusnoos 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. I know that was facecious, but lets not. It would only add to this confusion! :p SynergeticMaggot 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response. Either way there is no real connection established other than the Gnosticism section and a little bit of the Wicca section, and no similarities. SynergeticMaggot 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if User:RJHall removed the prod tag then that says it all. Orangehead 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please note that RJHall is not participating in this discussion, and should not be used as a reason for keeping or deleting an article. Cheers. SynergeticMaggot 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — Yikes, I should certainly hope not! But I suspect that may have been a "sarcastic" vote anyway. Looks like I've been spending too much time in here... — RJH (talk) 20:06, 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 keep with a request for expansion added to the article. alphaChimp laudare 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Jolls[edit]

100% pure cruft. This guy isn't Al Roker or Ted Koppel, just some guy who wasn't good enough to leave local TV to get a network TV job where he may actually have become a notable person, someone notable enought to meet the WP:BIO standards. Adam 1212 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commander Tom was a long running kids show, therefore makes him notable. Stormscape 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 26 years as the same character is notable. I think the nominator needs to broaden his scope beyond Ted Koppel and Al Roker. Agne 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Need expansion, but he seems notable enough. Local notability in a sizable area is plenty. Ace of Sevens 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Just as notable as Irv Weinstein, part of the same longest-serving local TV news team in US history. Kirjtc2 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has somebody got in for WKBW staff? Tom Jolls was a member of the longest runnign anchor team, and is well known throughout upstate New York, and Southern Ontario. That passes the bar of notability for me. -- Whpq 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup: The article is a mess. At the same time, the duration of his time on television, and, most particularly, when he began with the "Commander Tom" show, has passed him from local phenomenon to a minor cultural touchstone. Additionally, the area served (which was pretty large before frequency crowding and the reduction of signal range) has meant a pretty large umbra. This is right on the line between significant enough and not and not a clear keep, but a clean article would pass muster for me. Geogre 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~Per nomination. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. If the guy ever lands a job at a national network, then maybe we can have an article, but that is unlikely. Just because someonw is notable in Buffalo or has languished on some local TV station for a few decades doesn't make you notable. Yes he is just as notable as Irv Weinstein - something that means that he is not since they both fail the WP:BIO guidlines. There are a lot of parochial intrests here obviously and as someone not from Buffalo I can tell you that this guy is not notable. You need to vote with your head and not your heart, since some people tend to bond with people they see on TV, regardless of how non-notable they are. Voting because you saw the guy on TV in Buffalo for years is a biased vote. This guy and Irv Weinstein mabye deserve a paragraph or two in the main article about the station and that is it, since they really have no relevance or notablity outside of Buffalo. Cheesehead 1980 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not from Buffalo. I've never even been closer than Philly. The truth is, most notable people are local to some degree. To use the nominator's examples, how well are Al Roker and Ted Koppel known outside the US? If someone has won nine Emmies, even if they are local ones and is known to pretty much everyone in a fairly large area, that's good enough for me. Ace of Sevens 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't even know who Al Roker and Ted Koppel are. I'm Canadian. But I saw re-runs of Commander Tom when I was growing up. That show was awesome. Stormscape 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Not from Buffalo and never seen this personality nor any of the other Buffalo & Baltimore area news personalities being AfD. However, I can appreciate the notability and impact on their community that these figures have. Upstate New York and Lower Ontario is not a minute area of the world. There is a large chunk of people who know these figures and would be interested in reading about them. Considering the unlimited nature of Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia I see no loss in keeping the article.Agne 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:BIO guidelines specifically state that the criteria being applied are "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". This nomination is a blind application of a guideline being interpreted as a rule without due consideration to a bolded admonition not to simply delete when the guidleines are not met. Achieving an iconic status within a locality works for me. -- Whpq 19:09, 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 keep. alphaChimp laudare 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Newberg[edit]

100% pure cruft. This guy isn't Al Roker or Ted Koppel, just some guy who wasn't good enough to leave local TV to get a network TV job where he may actually have become a notable person, someone notable enought to meet the WP:BIO standards. Adam 1212 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Winning nine NY Emmy awards seems to be a valid reason for inclusion. Seems unusually notable for a local broadcaster. Wickethewok
  • Keep per Wickethewok. Stormscape 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:BIO. The US TV industry gives out way too many Emmys. I'm just about okay with Daytime Emmys, as at least they're still national... but local Emmys... not a major award and so not encyclopedically notable. Winning 9 minor local awards makes him unusually notable in a minor local way Bwithh 04:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wickethewok. Considering that a major market like New York has 40+ anchors alone, winning 9 local emmys is certainly a notable affair. Agne 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. He seems notable enough to me. Ace of Sevens 06:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes teh bar for notability for me -- Whpq 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is some two-bit anchor who languishes in a televison backwater because he didn't have the talent to get a network job. There are most likely at least a hundred people like him and unless they did something truly notable, like became a congressperson, mass murder, astronaut, etc. then maybe they would be of some note. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. Cheesehead 1980 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Cheesehead 1980. wikipediatrix 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wickthewok. Nine NY Emmys is nothing to putz at. Vickser 20:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If local talent is Emmy-worthy, then he's Wiki-worthy. Jdlow 20:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. AgentPeppermint 20:34, 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 null and void. Mailer Diablo 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Kerr[edit]

  • Keep The Baltimore Washington market is one that many personalities considered better that going to the network. Any person that would delete this man of distinction and who was such a Broadcasting pioneer has personal issues.

Please leave Stu Kerr's article ALONE!!

  • Now check out the following from some idiot with nothing better to do:

100% pure cruft. This guy isn't Al Roker or Ted Koppel, just some guy who wasn't good enough to leave local TV to get a network TV job where he may actually have become a notable person, someone notable enought to meet the WP:BIO standards. Adam 1212 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bozo the Clown is VERY notable in its own right. The article also references several other notable films & TV shows. Agne 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was going to vote keep but our article on Bozo the Clown said it was a franchised show with each area having its own Bozo. Willard Scott was arguably the most notable. Capitalistroadster 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only local enemies and many people played Bozo. -- Kjkolb 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Within Baltimore, he's sort of known, but that makes him a regional celebrity. Because he was not a permanent fixture and because John Waters hasn't featured him yet (or the article doesn't say), he's not passing into general culture. Geogre 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there was not just one Bozo the Clown, but many local versions. This was one of the many local versons. The guy was also a bit player in a couple of movies, too which also doesné make him notable. If the guy had any real talent he would have not been stuck in Baltimore for his career. He may be kinda sorta notable in Baltimore, but that may be it. Cheesehead 1980 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the assumption (especially as it is laid out in the nomination) that because a news personality didn't do network then they don't have talent is uncivil and unfair to the subject. There are many reasons for declining a national network job (relocating family, change in lifestyle, etc) that keep alot of very talented broadcasters in their local market. In regards to Bozo, yes there were several local Bozos but that still doesn't decline the notability of that particular local Bozos. Many, many children who grew up in Baltimore area (and DC too) who want to look up info on their Bozo are not going to want to read about Willard Scott. They're going to want to read about Stu Kerr. I also think we're not giving enough credit for his service to children's television including his role in shaping Kevin Clash's career--without whom we would have never had the Elmo phenomenon. Agne 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominations like this are a bit insulting, and it would be much better if we avoiding trying to insult our subjects. Ill will is bred that way. Even if the authors are well-known for their obsessiveness with inappropriate content (the Philadelphia news watcher has been around for a long time, and he or she keeps churning these things out), we have no need to be insulting. Geogre 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- he was on Kaptain Kangeroo, and that only wikipediatrix above so far gave a non-ridiculous sounding (implied) reason for delete. Really, is being in a John Walters film the bar we're going to set to be included in Wikipedia? — SterlingNorth 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep" - Not sure if my last edit went through. Stu Kerr was an integral part of early television in Baltimore. I had the honor of meeting Stu while a broadcasting student and he shared that "The Early Riser" (where he did his janitor character) was a staple of early television because a good part of the show was improvised. Stu was also the host of the popular "Dialing for Dollars" for several years on WMAR TV. Deleting Stu's contributions would be a major loss because media students would be unable to read about one of the pioneers of childrens' shows and the days of early television. Joyce 7122 Baltimore Maryland - August 1st
  • Keep per Agne. Besides, we don't want Spotteddogsdotorg to get his way. ErikNY 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Agne and ErikNY. AgentPeppermint 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- one of the local early legends of the mid-atlantic TV market
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling General Board (IGN)[edit]

Unverifiable original research. Not anywhere near notable enough for its own article. At most, it deserves a couple sentences inIGN, though entirely different content. All the content right now is absurdly POV and certainly OR. Delete as such. Wickethewok 02:49, 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 null and void. Mailer Diablo 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mabry[edit]

Yet another local TV personality that doesn't meet the WP:BIO standards! Adam 1212 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like an obituary. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but certainly needs to be sourced. The article establishes some notability with his broadcasting award, serving as broadcasting association chapter president as well as a potentially pivotal part in media exposure during the Civil Rights movement. If this can be sourced and verified then his notability is well established. Agne 05:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Agne. Article could be improved. -- Whpq 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a copy & paste obituary, and there are no sources externally to show impact and references. He sounds like a wonderful, interesting, and valuable person whose passing makes the world a colder place, but I cannot see his place in general culture above the local level. Geogre 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Only of it can be sourced and verified as not being cut and pasted from an obituary. Otherwise delete. Cheesehead 1980 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me like this article needs cleanup, not deletion. Vickser 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mabry was one of Birmingham's first and best known broadcasters. It definitely needs cleanup. I may enlist one or two of Mabry's old co-workers in a cleanup effort. Realkyhick 07:06, 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 CANCELLED. Nominator and first deleter are indef-blocked socks. Vickser, if you want to, you'll have to make a fresh nomination. -Splash - tk 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Joseph[edit]

100% pure cruft. This guy isn't Al Roker or Ted Koppel, just some guy who wasn't good enough to leave local TV to get a network TV job where he may actually have become a notable person, someone notable enought to meet the WP:BIO standards. Adam 1212 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~Per nomination. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. If the guy ever lands a job at a national network, then maybe we can have an article, but that is unlikely. ~~
  • Delete Too new to have made a mark and no awards. Vickser 20:18, 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 DELETE. nonsense. --Madchester 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The method of Goli (FIFA 0607.27a)[edit]

Completely unclear article, almost to the point of putting it up as patent nonsense, but not quite. It might have something to do with sports. Fails the Google test. eaolson 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as good as nonsense.--Peta 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I can't even figure out what this article is supposed to be about (a proposed football/soccer rule?). Borderline nonsense. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the proposal outlined is nonsense, the article is utterly non-notable. MLA 09:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete a completely nonsensical article. Even if it made sense it's clearly WP:OR - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does make sense. Translating into English: It's a proposal to replace the penalty shootout method of determining tied games in football matches with a rule that involves counting how many times each goalie has touched the ball. The article states that it is documenting an idea that was invented on 2006-07-27, i.e. yesterday. The article is clearly original research. Delete. Uncle G 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prefer the method of Gollum in any case. Smerdis of Tlön 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as original research. NawlinWiki 16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also suspect it may be a copyvio (albeit one that's translated. Badly). --Daduzi talk 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per everyone. Unfortunately this does have some sort of syntax, which saves it from being complete gibberish and a speedy. Jacqui★ 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there is any significant attempt at amending the rules of football, it will, no doubt, be accounted for under the appropriate artcles e.g Laws of the Game -- Alias Flood 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsensical. Vickser 22:21, 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 null and void. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Murphy (reporter)[edit]

100% pure cruft. This guy isn't Al Roker or Ted Koppel, just some guy who wasn't good enough to leave local TV to get a network TV job where he may actually have become a notable person, someone notable enought to meet the WP:BIO standards. Adam 1212 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. TV personality in relatively large Philly market. Medtopic 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded. Al Roker was once a local weatherguy, too (but at the NBC home station) and then he became Al Roker. This guy hasn't become anything yet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can restart the article if the guy ever becomes actually notable and meets the WP:BIO criteria, but he will most likely languish for years as a non-notable local television personality. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. Cheesehead 1980 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ah, the good old Philly TV Watcher. He loves his local reporters to distraction. The figure here is a local personality who has not demonstrated wider significance or effect. Geogre 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Philly's a big enough market that I think he's worthy of inclusion. Vickser 22:01, 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 OVERRULED- er...I mean DELETED. Despite the army of sock/meatpuppets, the consensus among established users is pretty much unanimous that this shouldn't be a standalone page. With no evidence that this is a noteworthy meme, the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney page won't benefit from a merge, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection![edit]

An internet meme, and one that doesn't seem particularily notable by any indicator except for the number of "Objections" that the site says have been created. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given that it has a weekly average of 8,675, which is quite high. We also have to consider that the alexa bias would weigh against this site since the majority of it's users are gee^H^H^Hmore technically minded, meaning they're less likely to have alexa installed, if we believe the sites figures for a moment, 59% of users don't use IE. Darksun 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not only is 8,600 not particularily high, but it is clear that it has not held this average for a very long period of time. It could be a passing fad. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site has only existed at this address for a couple of weeks, so to look at any other average would be misleading, plus, take into account what I said about a high alexa bias in this case. If it was more representative of true web use, it'd probably be around 4,000, or maybe even higher. Darksun 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Objection! (Phoenix Wright). -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, it would still be the same article, with the same reasoning applying. The name isn't really an issue. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we had a WP:WHOCARES, I think it'd probably apply to this one. This is of zero encyclopaedic value and cannot be documented to pass WP:MEME or WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. GassyGuy 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Phoenix Wright and redirect. Penelope D 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move (as per Chris). I don't agree with Merge on the grounds that this page is not an official Phoenix Wright page, nor is not a feature or easter egg of the game. The page, as it stands as of this moment, is factually correct. The defense cedes that the notability of Objection! cannot be proved by conventional means. However, I propose, based on the fact that this article is well written and accurate, that the prosecution take it upon themselves to attempt to prove this article is not notable. My analysis of the article is, of course, subjective. I naturally invite you to contradict, or support my claim. Although, it might be more productive for Wikipedia if, instead of pointing out factual inaccuracies in this article, you instead take it upon yourself to investigate and rewrite parts which are not to your satisfaction. MrD 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, that's as bad as asking me to prove that Intelligent Design doesn't exist. As I have no access to statistics or anything reliable on the page, its notability is essentially non-falsifiable. That is, I can't prove that it's false. Therefore the burden responsibility should fall upon yourself to prove that it is notable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I believe we've come to the crux of the matter, which is this: I believe that this article should never have been VfD'd. If you check the history, it was nominated originally for deletion only eight minutes after it was first made. I believe that such an article should at not be outed almost instantly just because it is classed as an 'internet phenomenon', but given 'stub' status until such time as it's notability can be determined without any doubt one way or the other. Is there any Wikipedia statistics that can be used to determine the popularity of the article? Ignoring the website for the time being: until statistics which are considered to be Wiki-kosher are gleaned (refer to my comments about asking the author for any more real stats), this is the only real data that can be analysed in any form. The only other fact around which we can base any real argument is that Objection! exists. Obvious, yes, but I believe that this alone may be the reason why it's been added to Wikipedia: Somebody figured that Objection! was popular enough to write about. Others, including myself, found it useful enough to refer to, and worthy enough to add to. It's a good article as it stands, and it should remain because of this. Basically, it's popularity is shown by its presence on Wikipedia. MrD 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I think it's far more productive to AfD the article right away - if the subject fails to get popular, it means there's less wasted effort, if the subject becomes a sneaky hit, it's a matter of DRVing the thing and restoring the history (if needed). If, on the other hand, the (early) AfD finds the material keepable, that strengthens the article's reason of existence and is less likely to get AfD'd later, as you can refer to the earlier decision. Also remember, we don't make articles about stuff that's about to become popular, we're making articles about stuff that is popular. You can only start an "about to become popular" article if a country goes to war with another (apologies for using a current-events example) or something of that magnitude happens. Plus, we're absolutely not shy of deleting articles that are "popular" by Wikipedia standards (ie, have a ton of revisions) - the notability of the subject is all that matters. If Wikipedia article popularity mattered, we'd create articles about the articles. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now I know you're yankin' my chain: Birkenhead is popular with nobody! :P MrD 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • But the notability of even the smallest of towns is established, they get sometimes AfDd, and pretty much always kept if the town actually exists... And besides, as you can see, you can write a lot more about Birkenhead than this thing. With multiple printed sources. How about deleting a whole frigging continent with no permanent population at all, can't be a very interesting place by that fact alone, now can it? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hehehe @ MrD! I guess you might have to live in Birkenhead yourself to get that. 80.47.227.228 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge And Redirect - A merge would be justified and easy to incorporate into the main Phoenix Wright article; We can easily have a section for memes that it has spawned. Additionally, while I need to look into it more, the episode of XPlay which covered this written version of the review apparently mentioned the meme. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a popular site, it's got an extraordinary number of hits in a small time. Darksun 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got a reliable source for that claim? wikipediatrix 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the Objection! FAQ, the maker of the site tells you how many total objections have been made, along with how much bandwidth he uses, currently 224.341 GB. However, disappointingly, it does not name the number of hits. But I think we can substantiate that it is an incredibly popular site. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should check that seven figure number below the number of "objections": The number of "objection" views. Currently, it's 2580201. MrD 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what evidence do you have that it didn't start at 2580000? The site might be that popular, but we can't just take it's owner's word for it. — Haeleth Talk 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to, just start with the first objection, changing the last number in the URL I just gave you from n=1 to n=2 and so on. Work your way up to number 462,401 if you have the time. --NomaderTalk 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually e-mailed the author for any information he might know of that isn't on his site and can prove that it's as popular as he claims it is. He gave me this, which is the site that's hosting it official log record, and this, a screenshot of some menu he has. Nothing that will keep this article alive. I hate to say it, but it's a goner. --NomaderTalk 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the original creator of this article - I believe that this internet meme is popular enough to merit its own article. Considering that things such as Limecat and Bunchies are fine Wikipedia articles, I have no reason to believe that this article is not fit for Wikipedia. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are pretty questionable too, but at least they manage more than two references. Also, the two references here are the site itself. Is there any way to prove the reliable source coverage necessary to meet either WP:MEME or WP:WEB? GassyGuy 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think I'm becoming quite a wishy-washy voter here... this site is popular enough in my opinion to merit its own article. Not only that, but since its original creation, the article quality has increased tri-fold. And, from the information provided to me by the maker of the site (it's somewhere in this mess), I approve of the article I started. --NomaderTalk 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I'm not one to change votes, especially on an article that I created myself in the beggining. However, I now regret what I have written in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. The Generator is fun, but it doesn't merit any article. It lacks any outside sources or references of popularity, and somehow managed to get thousands of hits because it let you type something. If this article were allowed to pass, so would all of these. And although Generators are fun, they aren't meant for Wikipedia. --NomaderTalk 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Schicksal 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and the fact that I don't care). --Rehcsif 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor internet meme with unverifiable claims of notability. Note that we cannot take the site's own word for the number of views it has received or the amount of bandwidth it uses! It is not a reliable source. — Haeleth Talk 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can verify that the number of Objections is accurate, just create an objection, look at the number, then try any number smaller than that. Consider also that there are 11,200 links to objections listed on Google, a high number considering the site has only existed for a couple of weeks. [23] Darksun 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that's not unusual on the internet. Other memes with more hits have been deleted, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, the hits counter thing is ridiculous! That comment where we can trust hit counters, that's just like saying all text-based hit counters shouldn't be trusted. If it did start at whatever ridiculous number you said, then I'd like to see someone go try rigging a counter to start at 240000000. The counter is put there as a source of facts, not a popularity contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.204.85 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as per User:GassyGuy. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website, diiiiiiie Luigi30 (Taλk) 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is only a minor meme. Also fails website notability guidelines. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* If people view the sie site or want to know about it we must keep the article, or else wikipedia will be a horribly incomplete source of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.245.16 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not the source of knowledge, and trying to fill it to replace all other resources would be counterproductive. This is why there are such rules as WP:V and the likes. GassyGuy 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please, oh please, tell me that the above 'keep' comment was tongue-in-cheek. --Rehcsif 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (somewhere) or delete. Keep is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Why is the Objection generator any more notable than any other of the vast number of generators plaguing the internet? Because the site's author says it gets two million hits? Yeah, well I say my website containing the word "parakeet" exactly 243 times gets two million hits, so let's give it an article! You have two choices, either find a reliable source that indicates notability, or admit that this article should be deleted. Which is it? --68.52.65.122 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Y'all seem to doubt the verifiability of the hit counter on the FAQ page. Has anybody actually contacted the author for any kind of confirmation? MrD 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, it's not a hit counter, it's an "Objections!" counter. I really wouldn't think of it as a problem though, it's the most pointless of things to fake. Many people may do multiple Objections, so it doesn't necessarily speak directly to popularity. Besides that, see what I said way up about the Alexa info. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a nit-pick, there's a hit ("objection" views, rather than "objection" creations) counter below the "objection"s counter. MrD 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bah, hit counters. Get us media citations. Those rarely spin. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Insert here my best Manfred von Karma impression... which usually fails spectacularly. =) Absolutely no proof that this thing is really all that famous. Funny, though, but not really much more than a minor meme. And as stated so many times before: Yes, Wikipedia is an incomplete source of information - because there's too much to know in our world, we need to stick to stuff that matters and is encyclopedic. We don't need to cover really marginal stuff, and that wouldn't be desirable even... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was nominated within minuites of being created. All wikipeida artcles start out as stubs, and if we AFD that quick, we wouldn't have over a million. This is a MEME; it is just a young one, and I would expect it to grow very quickly. If this meme isn't majorly popular within a month or two, then AFD it, not 9 mins after article creation. NeoThermic 16:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing an external link on Phoenix Wright article ("... an "Objection!" generator that became a minorly popular Internet meme", or something along those lines). What I really object to is the fact that we'd need a whole article for this. I'm really, really not opposed to having it somewhere. It's just that the extent of the meme's popularity should dictate how greatly it should be covered in Wikipedia. Right now, right here, this thing isn't popular enough to warrant a whole article. It's barely worth the external link.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://objection.4camp.net/go.php?n=505055 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.3.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge into Phoenix Wright series. It's a notable meme, enough to get mentioned on a page, but not mentioned as a page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For whatever it's worth, I added it there. Better than nothing at all, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a young meme, but it's had quite a number of visitors. 69.81.201.94 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a growing and incresingly popular meme. If anything move it into the Pheonix Wright article, but I think it's strong enough to be it's own article. SSJTOM 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move as per Chris. While the meme is fairly popular, one can only assume from the number it will increase in popularity. At the very least, it should be merged, not deleted. Diametes T. Jackson 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a popular site worth mentioning. There are hundreds of Wikipedia pages like this one. It's not fair to delete this page, and leave the rest of them there.--Sima Yi 00:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by all means, please brings these pages to attention with {{prod}} or WP:AFD them. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move as per Chris. Seems like it has a strong enough following to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. - DrachenFyre > YOU! 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move as per Chris. 154.20.251.253 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, or Merge into Phoenix Wright series. Growing fast enough to get some sort of nod. --68.9.152.140 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stupid as hell as these things have proven to be, it should be kept as it is quite a huge phenomenon on the internet and it probably isn't going to die down. A Clown in the Dark 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment everyone here is calling it a "huge" meme. Where the devil is the evidence of this? I would suspect that people are coming here from somewhere else, ie. GameFAQs, though that site's forums are too odd for me to find this out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The website is apparently down [24] and is directing people to the Wikipedia page on; this then leads them to here and they vote to keep. *sigh* -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recieved an e-mail from the creator of Objection! regarding Moeron's comment. I had previously e-mailed him for information about the information listed on his site, so he just sent me an e-mail asking for me to post this up for him. Apologies for taking up so much room, but he deserves to be heard out. I also recieved this page, which shows the site's current bandwidth usage for Objection!. It was provided to me at an earlier time, and I posted it - yet, most seemed to ignore it. I do have a screenshot and a few other sites, but I think that's all you need.

I linked to Objection on Wikipedia because I like Wikipedia, and I think that it's become a useful reference for information such as this. That's all," he said.

"To tell you the truth, my host was absolutely livid about Objection. They thought it would be something that would pass in a day or two... when they saw the bandwidth per day, they just cut me like -that-. It was stretching it to convince them to change the message from 'This site has used too much bandwidth and is temporarily offline' (or something like that) to that single spartan HTML page. I wasn't at my home computer at the time of the cut, so I didn't have the Objection source stuff handy. I couldn't FTP the FAQ out of the website, they wouldn't let me. I had to contact the host directly to get them to upload that page instead of the standard bandwidth error. Wikipedia was the only site I could link to that had the correct information so they could find out what all these weird numbered links they were seeing on forums were."

"Anyway, Objection!'ll be back before you know it, and Wikipedia can be back to it's ordinary self again. Wouldn't that be a relief, eh? :D" --NomaderTalk 01:52, July 31, 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I found this page on my own, and I must say I'm very suprized this would ever be considered for deletion. I myself have seen about 100 different objections used on a forum I visit. They're quite fun. FreeLance FoX 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have seen so many of these used in several forums I go to. Several internet memes derived from videogames HAVE recieved their own Wikipedia page, not a category of the game itself. All Your Base Are Belong To Us doesn't direct to Zero Wing, does it? And, if the site does start to stop being used a bit, we can always delete the page later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.166.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, interesting Meme, nice example how a game celebrating a feature of the DS (you can actually shout Objection at your console), will spark memes like this and ofcourse on the PW page their should be a linky in the trivia section to this Romanista 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i find the talk of whether this meme is 'popular' enough to be somewhat bizzare - how to you qualify that anyway? hit counters only show half the story - it all depends on whether the visitors wanted to go there/knew where they were going in the first place, for a start. memes are a social phenomenon, and as such, i have seen this one on a number of different forums i frequent, and just as much as, say 'All Your Base', so I would say it is valid.--Gecks 09:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All that is required is a footnote on the page for Phoenix Wright. Objection! is amusing, but entirely ephemeral, and has become 'popular' only because the game is. PatrickJLByrne 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Phoenix Wright. This is a non notable internet fad, but it would do well to redirect to the game -- Steel 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MrD --Morlark 11:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedian06 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Objection generator is already mentioned in the external links of the article about Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorny, it warrants nothing further. 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As not notable for an article --Pichu0102 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because Wikipedia is not an organisation that determines whether sites or notable or not based on thier liking of them or personal opinions on the matter. It's a resource, even a passing fad is something to be noted and remembered. If you can't see the logic behind keeping it, at least include the link in the Pheonix Wright entry. --Seraphna 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We Wont Run Out Of Room Owwmykneecap 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base This is how internet phenomena go - To delete this is to delete what made Wikipedia, the input of the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.249.13 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The thing is that both of those articles have reliable sourcing in non-trivial publications, as per criteria. This article (at this present time) has yet to reach other media then a small community. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Explain what "small community" you are referring to. Listed on the Objection! wiki, it claims 3 rather LARGE "communities" are involved with the use and knowledge of Objection!. Various friends I know online and offline, who aren't involved or aware of those 3 communities know of Objection! and have directed my attention to it. A rather large portion of people who browse the internet on a daily basis know of this, in such a short time. Also, various people have been stating that it gets a high voltage of traffic, and the proof is in it's stats. Each "Objection!" page is rather small in filesize, for a site that hosts it's main content as a small, singlefile page, sure is using a large amount of bandwidth and gets a large amount of hits. IceSage 04:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "small community" meaning it has yet to be mentioned in a non-trivial, reliable source ala All Your Base and Leeroy Jenkins. Wikipedia is about verifiabiliy, not truth. We can not go on your saying the page is popular, since that is original research. We also can not add content to a Wikipedia article going on what the webmaster reports to users here, since information added needs to that have already been published by reputable publishers (WP:V). -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Not to get off-topic, but I'm a bit confused as to an actual example of a reliable source is, and yes, I read the guidelines... However, where are the reliable sources in the Leeroy Jenkins article? (Please don't reply with "Jeopardy.") Provide an accurate example of a reliable source and I can make the appropriate arrangments to get these sources notified into printing an article, etc.
  • Keep Why? Very simple. It's an amusing internet phenomenon that is developing the kind of fanbase that makes Snakes On A Plane already a smash hit before even coming out in theaters. It's the kind of driving force that has a life of its own because it was so simple, yet so clever. A device that generates comments in a court scene for fun and games? Sure, why not? People have adored more for less. It's the simple things in life that get to you. I don't think you should bother blotting out "Objection!", though I will say that it's good to see it gets a fair trial. And if anyone has any...objections...well, so be it. Personally, I like it. Let's keep it around for our simple enjoyment. 204.215.207.106 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)The Lord Massacre[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be reasonably popular, I have seen it linked from several (unrelated) websites in the last few days. And the article can be deleted later if the fad dies, there is no need to rush it. Alsaan 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is just another example of deletionist fuckheads trying to ruin the Wikipedia project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.233.87 (talk • contribs)
    • Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that people think that it's not notable enough. So are you going to vote keep for every article, including a random person who lacks any notability? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simple enough. I saw 'Objection!' being repeatedly linked to on a forum, I was curious, I looked it up on Wikipedia and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. That is, after all, why I use this site. Regardless of whatever standards of 'notability' are considered necessary for an internet meme to warrant a serious encyclopedia article (laugh), I found the article useful, so I say let it stand. S. Mitchell 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. That argument could be made for any article, whether it be for my friend down the street Isaac Sletto or the Iceberg level from Kirby's Dream Land 3. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I like Wikipedia primarily because of its indiscriminate nature. To me, the fact that it archives information even on minor things that only a handful of people would want to look up is what seperates it from other encyclopedias. I'm aware that any point I could make has probably been hammered into the ground already, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that an article containing information I found personally useful is not noteworthy enough to exist. 59.167.180.72 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but there are more people who will turn to Wikipedia for information about this popular site than for information about your friend, and the information about the Iceberg level can be placed into the main Kirby's Dream Land 3 article. Granted, you could argue that this information be merged into the main Phoenix Wright article, but I disagree with that merger on the grounds that it's not an official Phoenix Wright spinoff or advertisement. However, I'd rather see the article merged than all information about it deleted from Wikipedia. Darksun 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So because it's more popular than some random person, it deserves its own article? There are probably hundreds of thousands of pages that are more well-known than Objection!, and few of them have articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is used on many forums for humorous purposes. It would be a moot point to try and use all of these forums as references.24.17.69.236 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you find that that's a problem, get to writing! MrD 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since memes have had their own pages in Wikipedia quite a number of times. 72.231.145.5 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's popular... it gets alot of visitors. It's a valid thing to have an article on, and keeping the article will not harm Wikipedia in any way, and will probably have more of a positive effect than a negative one. --71.194.67.119 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Furthermore, wikipedia should not be used as a tool to promote non-notable websites. Combination 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although not worthy of its own article just yet, it’s getting a large amount of hits and should therefore get a mention in the Phoenix Wright article.

or, to put it another way http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=555850 --El cid the hero 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It's a popular fansite that is used a lot, but I don't think it's so complicated that it deserves it own article.
  • kep noo noooo what ru doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! keep thies articale is very important. on forums i go there many people yea check out this this is objection and is very funny hahaha makes me laugh all the timea nd those links prove alrady its notable. sso yeah..... keeeeep!!!!!!!!!!! Gyakugene 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Gyakugene (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be popular enough to be notable. DanPMK 11:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable, seems to be quite literaly blitzing many large forums. AthlonBoy 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's literally blitzing? Literally? Wow, as impressive and physically impossible as that is, I think the site should probably just get mention in the Phoenix Wright article for now...
  • Delete - In no way does this in any way meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability. Much content of the article as it stands is original research as well. At most, this gets a mention in the main article. Wickethewok 15:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt is notable enough to keep,it's been in knowledge on runescape community which has 74,000 members. This is why I don't like wikipedia, it's full of ignorant fools who don't know anything but regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.32.83 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or merge Yes it's a bit of a silly phenomenon, but it's notable enough to keep around one way or another. EASports 20:48, 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 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most common words in Esperanto[edit]

Not to detract from its usefulness, but this is clearly a case of original research. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, delete. --Peta 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and improve/provide sources, in light of pages such as this one and this one. However, I might suggest that both the Esperanto and Finnish pages be moved to titles in their respective Wikis. Fabricationary 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The obvious difference between the english list and the esperanto list is that the latter was made from a survey conducted by the author which is OR. The Finish list is also problematic as it has no source information and I have nominated it for deletion.--Peta 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the author's rôle can be limited to merely tabulating existing data (from recognised and citable sources), that will not be OR. New analysis of existing data is excluded only if it "appears to advance a position". Vilĉjo 08:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree to weak keep This could be a valid article. While they may have a place in the Esperanto and Finnish wikis also, I think that these articles can very well be articles in the English wikipedia also. McKay 09:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was inspired to use Gutenberg by this page. I understand that the necessity for manual editing of the word list might turn it into OR. I'm pretty sure there are other Esperanto corpora out there, though - let me see what I can come up with. --π! 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orginal research. Userfy if the author wants. I do not think any of the other wikis, including the non-encyclopedias like Wikisource, would accept original research. -- Kjkolb 07:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted original research is against policy, but it's still up for debate whether it fits that definition. See this discussion. --π! 08:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. In principle this should be a perfectly valid article (like Most common words in English) – it is its limited source material which makes it potentially fall foul of WP:NOR. If the source material is sufficient to circumvent this (so that there is no need for manual editing or evidence of obvious anomalies as there are at present), there should be no problem. (If it survives this vote, it should however be tagged {{cleanup-verify}} until the improvements are made.) Vilĉjo 08:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati 14:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; do we have a Swadesh list for Esperanto? That might be more useful than this, which may be better at Wiktionary instead. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, they have one here already: [25] --π! 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this could be improved and some statement of relevance. Keeping is probably better than merging with Esperanto. A Swadesh list would be a good idea in Esperanto, and all languages. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Vickser 20:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening blog[edit]

  • Delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've deleted the link list so it conforms with WP:NOT, yet I still don't see this article getting anywhere. Are there any other articles describing different types of blogs? If so I can't see the harm in this one. Maybe just a newbies article made in good faith.--Andeh 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My reason is in two parts. First, WP:NOT-a-links-directory is not a reason to delete an article: only if the subject is unencyclopedic does an article deserve deletion. Second, as I said in my comment above, this sort of thing seems to be in line with other articles and so is arguably encyclopedic. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to weak keep per reasoning below. A move and expansion to hobby blog might be warranted, along with a merger with some of the other types-of-blog articles. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this should really be generalized as hobby blog. There are hobby blogs for gardening, woodworking, house remodeling, car restoration ... you name it. They don't all need Wikipedia articles, I can't imagine how useful beyond dicdefs any could get. "It's a blog. About gardens/cars/cabinets/chia pets. Sometimes it has pcitures." --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article nearly qualifies as a speedy delete, since it merely restates its title. A gardening blog is a blog on gardening. People might keep gardens, and they might write about their gardens, and they might do that with a blog. There is nothing given here to indicate that this type of blog is different from any other, that this type of blog is especially common, that this type of blog is fundamentally more than blog plus the adjective of "gardening." Geogre 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to apologize for the exasperation in my tone, however. I did not intend to insult the creator of the article, as I'm sure she or he had the best of intents. Geogre 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's excellent reasoning. I'm not sure what (if any) guideline or policy this would fall under, but simple common sense dictates that this sort of article has little to no value. Now that I've seen it, quite a few of the Types of blogs sister articles should probably be brought to AfD.--Isotope23 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. States nothing beyond the obvious. No sources. Fagstein 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after looking at a bunch of pages in the blog categories, I'm starting to think quite a few should be deleted, except those that have some sort of specific historical interest. (I'm the first-contact editor... I agree with Saxifrage in that I don't think it was intended as spam per se, but it's certainly unencyclopedic. SB_Johnny | talk 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No info beyond the obvious. --Improv 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre, unsourced. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:38, 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 delete as self-admitted nonsense. Kimchi.sg 04:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Benson[edit]

Suspect this is a hoax/vanity article. Can't find anything in Google. The article itself says this guys record is "impossible." eaolson 03:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 65 million record sales in 24 hours while averaging 38 ppg in the NBA leading the Grizzlies to a championship? My, quite the hoax... Wickethewok 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, so tagged... note that subject is also 16 years old. The NBA doesn't take them that young. NawlinWiki 04:34, 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 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty most common words in Finnish[edit]

Entirely unsourced list, is this OR, who knows? Delete--Peta 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Finnish Wikipedia upon translation/checking that there isn't already a similar article there, retaining the unsourced tag. I have no knowledge of that language family, so I can't begin to search that Wiki for a similar article. Fabricationary 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's unsourced and OR, it doesn't belong on any wiki. If it is (or can be) sourced, there's no reason to, in effect, insist that only those who are fluent in Finnish may access the list. Vilĉjo 08:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • fix and keep or delete I agree with Vilĉjo completely. McKay 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - per WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Listcruft. What's next, lists that break it down by most common nouns, verbs, adjectives? wikipediatrix 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom; if kept, move to Most common words in Finnish (as per equivalent article, Most common words in English to which Twenty most common words in English re-directs). I was unable to quickly find a similar article for anything other than English. Agent 86 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it should not be sent to the finnish encyclopedia. information about other languages should be useful to english speakers. it should, however WP:CITE its sources, and not use an arbitrary number, which indicates it should redirect to Most common words in Finnish. i kan reed 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Finnish language. That is obviously where this information belongs. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect folks who really need to know the 20 most common words in Finnish already know them. --technopilgrim 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't help but notice that there are only 16 words listed in the 20 most common word list. I nominate they, we, you, and my be added to the list to round it out before we delete it. --technopilgrim 22:07, 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 redirect to Decay chain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive decay path[edit]

article is a poor replication of decay chain Deglr6328 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete/Redirect I'm the one who was bored and (barely) slavaged the steaming pile of dookie it was before, but I agree that decay chain is better, still some of the important points should be merged into decay chian, like the age of the earth, and particle accelerator products infered from decay products. Also, I don't see Uranium 238 as any of the tables on decay chain. And just as a side note radioactive decay path was started in Oct/2004 and decay chain was started in Mar/2003 so there's no need to be snippy about 'poor replication' :P. Tiki God 05:23, 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. This discussion seems really pointless. The best suggestion here seems to be "Delete all of the masts, except for ones that are at least somewhat notable." Great idea, but you can't seriously expect any closing admin to read through every article on the list and make a judgement call on the notability of all of them.

"Delete all the stubs" isn't a very good idea in my opinion either. A stub tag doesn't make an article non-notable, and the lack of one doesn't make a subject notable. And what about the short articles that just don't happen to have a stub tag on them? Does the fact that an article isn't tagged properly mean it's somehow better than one that has a stub tag?

Please take the time to figure out the articles that actually warrant deletion based on their own merit (you don't need to read through them all at once, nominate a bunch if you see fit). However, I don't see much point to that since the articles would be better as redirects than nothing anyway, so that they wouldn't be instantly recreated with little content. Anyone who thinks a mast isn't notable can still merge the article to list of masts and change it to a redirect. - Bobet 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of masts[edit]

This a special deletion request: The list of masts page has had one stub article created for every mast it lists. Instead of trying to delete each stub individually, I thought it would be more efficient to simply point to the page where they are all present. This deletion request is for these mast stub articles only and not the list of masts article. I hope this sitution warrants my bending the AfD process in this manner.

The reason for deletion of the mast stub articles is that all of the data in the stub articles is already present in the list of masts article, and very few, if any, are notable enough to be expanded or warrant a complete article. Unanimous support for these deletion has been reached on the list of masts talk page. --jwandersTalk 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed eventhough this is probably not the place to discuss this. -- Koffieyahoo 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that it would be a waste to have a separate AfD for each entry, some of these masts are individually notable. Keep all non-stub mast articles, keep all masts over 600 meters, which is a threshold height; keep any masts that can be shown to have been significantly involved in historical events, or which represent some famous or groundbreaking architectural development. Merge the rest into list of masts. bd2412 T 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the stubs. BD2412 -- Would you be willing to break out a list of the ones worth keeping? Maurreen 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, can't say that I would - not my area. bd2412 T 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect all stubs to list of masts. They can be created when there's an actual article. A stub serves no purpose if it doesn't have more info than the list page. Ace of Sevens 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all stubs, no point for a redirect in most cases. A hint for whichever unfortunate soul has to sift through these to see which are stubs and which aren't--almost all of the articles created by these IPs with the word "Tower" in the headline are stubs.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Certainly more (dynamic) IPs were involved here, but at least this'll start you out. And at least you know to look for the 85.74.XXX.XXX range in March-April 2005. -- H·G (words/works) 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the masts, except for ones that are at least somewhat notable. They may be notable for extreme height, extreme height for the time it was built, extreme height for its type (guyed or freestanding), age, being an unusual type of mast, unusual usage or for being significant in some other way. I don't think that being the tallest or almost the tallest mast at the state level or lower should count, though. I'm not even sure if the country level should count, since there are so many countries. It would be even worse if we had articles on the top masts by country and by type, like the tallest freestanding and guyed masts in each country. The continent level would probably be fine, and it might help the problem described in the next sentence. In regards to keeping the masts over 600 meters tall, I have noticed that all 58 of them are in the United States and so are the 500 to 600 meter tall masts. There are only 5 non-U.S. masts in the 400 to 500 list. The 300 to 400 list is dominated by the U.S. at the top, but non-U.S. masts show up with increasing frequency at the bottom. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all stubs that aren't linked to from other articles (which would indicate relevancy)Lesqual 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Lesqual, good test of notability. I think we should set a high standard for mast notability -- collapsing and killing a guy is one. (And there's a separate article on the collapse, hmmm.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mast articles were the subject of centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. Uncle G 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Lesqual. wikipediatrix 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question to the above voters: is there any particular objection to merging, rather than deleting, these articles? It least valid latitude/longitude information should be maintained somewhere. bd2412 T 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Merging is OK with me. My understanding was that the stubs had only the same information that is already on the list. Maurreen 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- title is ambiguous anyway; should be "List of Radio and Television Masts" or some such. Haikupoet 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all stubs. Redirects are too cheap not to employ when they make at least a little sense. Jacqui★ 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a huge table. - Make a huge table of all the mast with the following columns: name of mast, country, place, geographical coordinates (not for all available), use (VLF, long wave, medium wave, FM, TV or other) and remarks. This would be a very compact way of keeping all informations on one site! No stub deletions, only redirects to the table! User: Zonk43
  • NO!!! The problem is that virtually EVERY article here is officially a "stub". Even the KATV Tower article, which is probably among the ones NOT to be deleted (it's over 600 meters and is among the most-edited in the big list), is still labeled as a stub. I think the best solution to the problem is to mutually link the tower articles with those of the radio and TV stations that use them, which I did (before I registered) with the various stations of the Arkansas Educational Television Network and their towers (one of which is the KATV Tower). I also call your attention to the Arkansas Education Television Tower Fox article, which has a considerable amount of text even though the small Arkansas town it's named after doesn't even have an article! --RBBrittain 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all mast stubs What if you want to know about a mast? --Shanedidona 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the articles and use the remarks section of the table for the extra information. If the stubs are deleted, then the article needs to be modified to remove all of the links to these articles. Links to the wiki articles and to the external links should be removed. Vegaswikian 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? - are there no people of the USA, which can give further information of the masts in the USA?

And the stubs of masts from Europe, Afrique and other parts of the world, which make only a small part of them, should not be deleted at all, because there it is not always good to get information of them! Other idea: merge this table with the List of towers and add at this table a column with "construction type". This would be therefore sensitive, since there are borderline constructions as Gerbrandy Tower.

  • Merge with List of towers! - this would give a very long list, but it would be a very interesting and very flexible online database of nearly all towertype constructions of the world!

If there is no space for databases in Wikipedia, then put the list, which is formed from List of masts and List of towers in Wikisource!

  • Keep it or merge it with list of towers!
  • Keep. I say keep them all. Many will probably only be recreated at some point in the future, so why go to all the (rediculous amount of) effort to delete something because it appears to have nothing worth notable about it other than it's size (to people like us who are unfamiliar with the subject), when people out there will know more and could make decnet articles. Hvaing the articles already in existence will encourage more people to add to them, rather than if we were now to delete them first. Also, the articles appear to include details such as coordinates, which isn't in the main list and would again be a very time cosuming and pointless job to merge into the list. Evil Eye 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undie Run[edit]

Entirely NN college tradition clearly fails all inclusion standards I can think of. If anything, this deserves a 1 sentence mention in UCLA. αChimp laudare 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' as per nom. Hahaha. --Merovingian - Talk 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Some other college students, at least, take all their clothes off before running around campus :). Fabricationary 04:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've gotta admit that streaking with underwear is pretty lame. αChimp laudare 04:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge mention of it at UCLA or circle jerk. It does seem notable enough to mention there. ref Medtopic 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Unencyclopedic tone, but has some limited notability. There's nothing here to suggest it merits a page, though. Ace of Sevens 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (one or two sentences) with the UCLA article. ViridaeTalk 09:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Legit When over 25% of the student body at a University jumps on a tradition like this so quickly, the history books need to record it.
Here are some recent articles: Article 1Article 2 Wikipedia has allowed the Texas A&M Midnight Yell, so precedent has been set: Midnight Yell--Jasonmoreno 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that you are misinterpreting our difficulties with the article. Although we wholly believe that this event really does occur, we're questioning its notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. You might want to check out WP:NN αChimp laudare 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to panty raid: I'm glad that it's a co-ed phenomenon and all that, and hooray for gender equality, but this is a local phenomenon at only one U. On the other hand, this is a probable euphemism and mistyping for the panty raid. Geogre 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "history books" (even a history of ULCA) will most likely not record this phenomenon. Regardless, it's not notable enough to need a whole article here. Merge with UCLA if you must. Geoffrey Spear 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only because the included pictures feature no female coeds, dammit. (Yes, that's sarcasm. Delete.) VoiceOfReason 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and unverifiable phenomenon. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It or Merge, The Naked Guys deserve to be recognized as the genesis of the current UCLA tradition. At the very least, they should be included with the Undie Run information. Bruinbowler 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is the user's first edit. --Merovingian - Talk 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiable but wholly unnotable student hijinks. -- 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 13:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians associated with cannabis use[edit]

I don't think there's any way to make this list in conformity with WP:NPOV or WP:V especially given the subjective nature of "associated with". Moreover, there is absolutely no way to make it comprehensive and complete given that countless (and I really mean countless) groups have in some way promoted marijuana or associated with it whatever that means. The prod was removed by the creator with this friendly reply to me. Actually I think the solution is to simply say that there is a list too long to give of musicians who have openly stated that they smoke. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination - seems subjective and list-cruftish to me also. If cannabis use by a particular musician is documented, it can always be mentioned on the individual musician pages. Fabricationary 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intersesting, however, I feel that the matter would've been better discussed on the talk page before you start proposing deletion. The fact of the matter is, you made no suggestions and moved immediately to deletion. And your initial message to me was none too friendly either, please be in the right before you criticize my wrongs. ReverendG 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above points, however, I agree, although I still believe that the article talk pages should be used before the deletion proceedings begin.
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending sources being introduced. Till then I think it should be tagged rather then going AfD. Agne 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much more useful article/list would be Musicians not associated with cannabis use. Medtopic 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to disagree with you there, as it's basically the opposite of this list.--Andeh 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not independently relevant, lacking in sources and almost completely impossible to source reliably. Dopecruft. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a mere list with no sources probably manages to break all policies. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a list that I can see no value in...it's just a list that you would find in a gossip magazine, which is what Wikipedia is not --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 10:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought that all musicians were associated with cannabis :-) Potentially infinite list. Ekajati 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bah Adam Sandler isn't even on here. Seriously though I can't ever see this list being complete or passing WP:V. Whispering 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no problem with a list even a potentially infinite one, but associated with is so squirrelly a phraseology that those who campaign against it, those who "didn't inhale" and down-right stoners all seem to fit in. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ekajati said exactly what was the first thing that came to my mind. Agent 86 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dope-lete per WP:V. Did the originating editor know much about the only-verbally-documented history of jazz, or of blues, or the more WP:RS-documented history of reggae or even rock'n'roll? The category is too vague to be documentable, and any well-defined retitling would (as noted in earlier comments) lead to a list too long to maintain and have users load. Barno 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Skully Collins. Wikipedia is not People Magazine. Mikeeilbacher 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially unmaintainable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not to mention the obvious: isn't every musician involved with the cronic? I joke, I joke...-Colonial One 14:20, 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 13:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Watson[edit]

Nonnotable young chef, does not appear to have even been head chef at any restaurant yet. NawlinWiki 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. He may be a "world-renowned" chef someday, but he's not now and shouldn't be making such claims. Fabricationary 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. Vanity page. Self-glorification with plenty of unsubstantiated name-dropping. His day may yet come, but today's not the day. Ohconfucius 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only red-link restaurants, and the ext.link doesn't even mention Kevin. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --Shrek05 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's this kid I knew in first grade who grew up to be one of the best-known young chefs in the Boston area. He owns his own place, which is a major night spot in Cambridge. He doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. If he doesn't have one, this guy doesn't warrant one either. Haikupoet 00:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The red-linked restaurant should have an article (ot's pretty well known) but nothing in the pumped-up resume indicates actual notabilit except by association. "Worked with" can mean anything from Head Chef to busboy. --Calton | Talk 07:32, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clip Smith[edit]

Appears to be a local celebrity of little renown outside of his broadcast area. ghits: [34] — NMChico24 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is very notable in the Buffalo area as a fixture on several stations and as the play by play announcer for reasonably large college program. Also, not many people had a tribute to them entered into congressional record. Agne 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable person. Erechtheus 05:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, was notable in Buffalo is not notable enough for Wikipedia. And yes, many people get tributes -- you basically just ask your congressman and he'll do it. All it is is the text of a glowing speech that some intern delivers to the Clerk of Congress. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was created on 7/27 to clear request at WP:AR1, so perhaps it would be best to allow some time for the article to gain traction.--Thanatosil 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a bit of additional research, based on the length of time he was on-air and his local political activities, Clip does appear to be somewhat notable. Not saying this has "perfect article" written all over it, but apparently quite a few people know of him. --Thanatosil 00:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Article has verifiable sources. Subject gets a handful of indpedendent Ghits. Article was only created a short time ago. Not a major notable figure, but I think it squeaks by and has some potential to "gain traction" as mentioned above. Scorpiondollprincess 14:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article can always be recreated when and if he ever "gains traction". wikipediatrix 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt Clip himself will "gain traction", as he is dead, but my point was that prodding an article fulfilling a WP:AR1 less than 10 minutes after its creation seemed excessive, not allowing the WP community time to augment the stub. --Thanatosil 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't seem very friendly, and I'd frown upon that practice. At the same time, Smith's book is written as you point out. Is there something that would establish his notability missing from the article? If so, there is time to add information to satisfy notability. Erechtheus 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess we'll see...I just created the stub by doing a bit of Googling in order to satisfy the request for an article. I'm from Chicago, so I hadn't heard of Clip previously, but if he's notable outside of Buffalo, hopefully someone will provide the info. :) --Thanatosil 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: For an insider's guide to broadcasting, this is probably good, but I'm not sure that those outside of that community and outside of the broadcast range will have encountered the name or that the personality created much of an effect beyond the local area. Geogre 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Local media figures are perfectly encyclopedic. - SimonP 12:52, 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 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty burglars[edit]

Possible hoax. Nothing in google regarding this band. Extremely dubious claim of notability (such hits as Stalker, Your Worst Best Mate and Happy Friday Went triple platinum over night! Were huge hits world wide!) — NMChico24 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources to back up notability in WP:MUSIC. Fabricationary 05:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one editor, no other edits, likely vanity. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 No verifiable assertion of notability. Jesse Viviano 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found out that even a ridiculous assertion of notability is enough to dodge CSD A7. However, it is a hoax and is so bad grammatically I am tempted to tag this as patent nonsense, even though I know it is not patent nonsense. Jesse Viviano 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yeah, one of the problems with A7 is that "In 2008 he conquered Asia" can duck it. Were I to have seen it on cat:csd, though, it might still have experienced an unfortunate accident in the night. Delete as buddycruft and a hoax. Geogre 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow. Dirty burglars. It's so important!--Planetary 08:38, 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 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola College Chapel Choir[edit]

This article is for a small/medium sized university's club chapel choir. Should be considered WP:NN if not self-promotion. Only 31 ghits. DrewAC07 04:20, 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, Mo0[talk] 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable group with no significant mentions anywhere. Fails WP:BAND and has no notability outside the music - Peripitus (Talk) 08:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where are the schoolaholics who must think any organization of a notable school is notable too? Carlossuarez46 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College club's aren't article worthy unless they've done something exceptional, which this club has clearly not. Vickser 20:31, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bennett (Pastor)[edit]

Non-notable vanity biography (WP:VAIN, WP:BIO). First contribution of user Cbenn93308, which appears to make it WP:AUTO as well. Seems like a very pleasant fellow, but notability is the question. Pagana 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/userfy - no claim to fame except having an occupation like any other person. Fabricationary 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Ace of Sevens 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vanity, Pastorcruft. wikipediatrix 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pastorcuft, parishcruft, would be notable if the date following his wife's name were her birthdate (probably marriage date) and having adult children, then we might have some notability...Carlossuarez46 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither verifiable nor notable. Vickser 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete, non-notable and unverifiable vanity. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Yunipo 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or suggest the author moves it into his Userpage: WP:VAIN -Colonial One 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn vanity. Daniel Case 03:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJAXSLT[edit]

Google's AJAXSLT is one of many implementations of XSLT, and although it is getting more press lately due to its use in Gmail and due to the current popularity of the AJAX programming methodology, it is no more notable than those implementations that don't have their own articles (which would be all of them). The content of the article itself is ripped verbatim from the project's homepage and offers nothing extra but a couple of related links. mjb 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia can't possibly keep track of all this stuff a fraction as well as the coder community can. Hence, always out of date. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Vickser 20:34, 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 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Items[edit]

RuneScape items was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-12. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape items.

vanity, unformatted list, non-encyclopedic Chris 73 | Talk 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as it's a direct copy and paste from a website as stated in the article - CSD A8 and re-creation of deleted content CSD G4. Apart from that it's just a list of items for a game, no encyclopedic content at all.--Andeh 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure this is copyrightable, but it's awful formatting and has no encycloopedic value in current form. Ace of Sevens 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately no speedy criteria apply. Copyvio maybe? And how is it "vanity"?Hyenaste (tell) 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be a speedy deletion candidate per CSD A8.--Andeh 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe. If not that then surely one of the previous versions is similar enough to warrant a speedy per CSD G4. Hyenaste (tell) 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two reasons for speedy then.--Andeh 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 12:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be usefull, it is NOT copyrighted, and the formatting can be fixed. I may vote to delete IF I replace the content of this page with and/or add a link to this page or the RuneScape page. --MasterEagle 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would seem to fall under the category fo a simple list of facts, which isn't copyrightable any more than a list of countries that are U.N. members, but I don't see how a list of items that doesn't explain what they are or their place in the game could be of any use to someone who is not playing the game, making it a game guide. Ace of Sevens 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be careful. Some lists are copyrightable, even lists of "facts" depending on what it takes to acquire the list... like a list of the 10 richest people in the world, (good luck finding that list on Wikipedia) McKay 09:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not useful to a player of the game. It's not even up-to-date. o_O Hyenaste (tell) 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not adding {{db-repost}} or {{db-copyvio}} speedy tags as the pages past deletion went without an AfD and the copyvio is questionable.--Andeh 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I deleted the page, but the creator asked me to go though AFD, hence I restored the page and listed it here -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well your the 2nd admin to speedy it this year, so I guess an AfD is the way to go.--Andeh 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a gaming wiki listcruft and gamecruft. -- Koffieyahoo 07:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom MikeMorley 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Speedy Delete if someone can provide proof of past AFD This is just a block text of items, completely useless to Wikipedia and probably completely useless to GameFAQS. J.J.Sagnella 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless (possibly copyvio) cruft. Can never ever be encyclopediac - Peripitus (Talk) 08:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not possibly encyclopedic. Creator, swallow your pride and absorb this as a learning experience, we're not trying to scare you off. --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RuneHQ already has a complete list of game items, from what I know. All you'd have to do is link RuneHQ in the main article, and you'd have a better, more valuable list without filling Wikipedia with cruft. Dark Shikari 10:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is just some raw data, probably generated by some modding tool. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for deletion, btu how is this vanity? There's no evidence that this article was written by anyoen involved in creating RuneScape. I'd go so far as to say it's improbable. Ace of Sevens 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolute and total failure of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - just a totally raw list dump, not even formatted. Ace of Risk 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - nonsense, and per any other problem above, take your pick. For a moment there I was going to vote keep or close debate, thinking it was an article we were still working on after previous AfD's! :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete with Righteous Fire - As per note in nomination, the article was already deleted once via AFD nom. Wouldn't even be appropriate for a gaming wiki. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This appears to be a data base dump(source most likely game code) as it refers to non-player items as well, would therefore be a copyright violation Gnangarra 17:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This statement on the page The ID numbers are used internally by the game and are not normally visible to players should be enough to demonstrate that the source is copyrighted. Gnangarra 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment; notice the asterisks at the start of the word 'repellent' (producing '***ellent')? That looks like the RuneScape chat filter in action, suggesting that this may well be an automatic dump of data straight from the game. I can't imagine why its set off the chat filter, maybe the RuneScape client was reverse engineered somehow. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow delete per nom. All voters please be reminded that WP:CRUFT is not a criterion for speedy deletion. {{move to gaming wiki}}. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for so many reasons, all mentioned above. GassyGuy 20:36, 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 as per previous vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape private servers -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Private Servers[edit]

Vanity, unencyclopedic. A number of new or anon users always add tons of detail on RuneScape, see Talk:RuneScape for more info Chris 73 | Talk 06:25, 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.


Please vote now, I have put hangon in the page and I want a revote. The one topic I know a lot aobut, and it gets deleted in first few minutes. Absolutely fantastic welcome. --MasterEagle 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reduced your header to avoid the AfD page format from going wrong.--Andeh 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review, as the page has been deleted. -- Koffieyahoo 07:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roofball[edit]

This page appears to fail WP:NFT and details a non-notable game even if it passes NFT. This article was proposed for deletion two months ago, but the template was removed. Since then, changes have been minimal. Erechtheus 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NFT definitely. Football started this way and in 20 years it had professional teams. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remind you of WP:NFT#The_right_way_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day_to_get_into_Wikipedia. This sport has been documented in three sources, which are cited in the article. The question is whether those sources have been fact checked and undergone peer review and this sport has actually become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 09:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT,WP:OR. Although it has citations for 3 sources they attest only to the use of the word roofball to describe games played using a roof and a ball, not the rules and history listed in the article (which are copied from the Vernal Equinox of 2006 version - the original editor's own work). Aside from that original research, the three sources disagree about the origins and history of the game implying that they are in no way connected other than by name and the two pieces of 'equipment' used. Yomangani 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very good argument. Thank you for making a case at AFD the way that cases should be made. Uncle G 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT made up on a roof. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as this seems to satisfy WP:NFT#The_right_way_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day_to_get_into_Wikipedia. As it has been pointed out, there are referenced sources (though the entire article is poorly formated). There is little binding the different varieties, but one cannot dispute that track is a valid collection of games albeit diverse. User: Kapsilico
The above comment was added by 128.170.131.142 who may or may not be User: Kapsilico. Yomangani 19:11, 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 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off of[edit]

Has been prodded before, but survived. Article still fails WP:WINAD. Has one editor, with a few other people correcting the article. MikeMorley 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wikipedia is not a language how to. -- Koffieyahoo 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get this Out of here - Peripitus (Talk) 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD: Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. The editor states that it is a 'how to' guide in the history as grounds for keeping it. Whoops! (by the way, I hope that the nom isn't implying that having only one editor is grounds for deletion or we are in trouble). Yomangani 10:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no, I'm not saying single-editor articles are inherently bad. What I meant was that despite a couple of prods the article keeps coming back to a form simillar to the one it is currently in MikeMorley 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it off of the Wikipedia. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't see how this will ever be expanded beyond its current state -- Whpq 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yomangani. In any case, it is standard current practice for dictionaries of the English language to be descriptivist, not prescriptivist (OED is highly descriptivist in its current form and it's considered the ultimate authority). Wikipedia should follow that precedent. Haikupoet 00:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not sure if transwikiing this is a good idea. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete. —Nightstallion (?) 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TW or D per above Computerjoe's talk 20:34, 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy (band)[edit]

I'm sure this band is very, er, musical and what not, but the article gives no indication that it meets any specific notability criterion of WP:BAND. A PROD to that effect was removed without comment. I'd like to point out that per WP:BAND, "the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true" – i.e., the burden of proof in such cases is on the article or its contributors, respectively. Sandstein 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Everybody here says that this band is notable, so I, knowing zip about metal, withdraw the nomination. However, the article really still needs to say clearly why they are notable. As the guideline says, just attesting it on AfD isn't enough. Sandstein 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept. The article started 10 hours ago. And been a stub article its ok. It has the basic band information. A Biography is needed. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" The band has released two albums. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" The Guitarist "Deathlord Of Abomination And War Apocalypse" played with the band Revenge and Conqueror. "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" They played in canada. --Neo139 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! But please put it in the article, then, with the appropriate external links, as required by WP:BAND. Sandstein 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Neo139. -- Koffieyahoo 08:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to just meet WP:BAND by the (Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels) skin of their teeth. Only two studio albums but they seem have been reissued and not died on a back catalog - Peripitus (Talk) 08:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Blasphemy's influence on the black metal scene is clear and undisputed. WP:BAND also has a section for performers outside of mass media traditions, and the external links on the band's page already prove the notability of the band. I now linked this: too. Not to mention that as a black metal band they have an AMG page (which is an accomplishment), and have 8 reviews on Metal-Archives. Prolog 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting that they are not, but a FAQ posted on a mailing list doesn't qualify as "cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential" per WP:BAND. Sandstein 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this FAQ is a great source. It is, however, very popular FAQ and updated often. And ANUS, well, they are highly popular when it comes to all things black metal, and very well-known outside this subgenre. It should also be noted that an article in a certain genre should use sources that specialize in that genre. By that I mean that when it comes to black metal, Metal-Archives is more reliable than, say, All Music Guide, who often list all extreme metal bands as "death metal". Prolog 09:50, 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 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picadito[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV/Radio Guide. Program not notable. Mariano(t/c) 07:33, 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 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prenaritism[edit]

Google hasn't heard of this philosophy, its creator, his books, or any of the cited books. Perfect clean zero hits on everything. Can anyone find any evidence that this thing exists? Weregerbil 07:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The library of congress catalog carries non of the cited books. -- Koffieyahoo 08:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax - cannot find either the philisophy or Esophales Prenarit anywhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax citing nonexistent but semiplausible printed sources, with very odd but semiplausible philosophical elements. Very strong joke vibe going on. His last work is listed as "Jerusalem Mein Hinterteil" - translates to "Jerusalem My Ass," 'my ass' being presumably an English exclamation (or "mein hinterteil" would get more than 30k google hits, compared to 15 million for "my ass"), think it's pretty safe to say this is made up.
  • KEEP of course since I created it. I have those books and others discussing Prenarit. The above person did get the translation right, Prenariat was vulgar in his later years it seems. Tenkikon
  • Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 12:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Can we go two days without some bogus religion/philosophy? Fan-1967 13:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why do people think it's funny to create articles about make-believe subjects? Is it like cybersex roleplaying, or what? With an alleged devout Christian theologist who extolls "living a life of drunken sloth" in order to understand Christ, it's not even believable cyber. wikipediatrix 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable hoaxery. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well written hoax. -Colonial One 16:12, 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 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touring label[edit]

Branding term being promoted as generic -- basically advertising/vanity. Term has no relevant google hits prior to the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:OR, WP:V. Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and protologism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but would like to edit... I am the AUTHOR of this article, and I would prefer to disclose that I also have a vested interest in this topic. I do think I see what was missing from this article that made it appear as branding, or advertising/vanity. What's odd is that my goal was to subdue any information that wasn't directly germane to the topic (i.e. too much company info)....

A tour label - even though it is this company that frame-worked the business model and first applied it - is a business model/structure unique to anything else in the industry, and one that is proving itself as a viable contender as the structural mechanism that supports this kind of art in this culture. That being said, I do believe that there is a growing reference base for this topic that can be the basis for proper cites on this article.

I believe that if I edited in the missing data that shows the precise dynamics of this structure, most would agree this entry is not simple brandizing or an issue of vanity or advertising. As a matter of fact, I opted to leave the company website out just to avoid such an appearance. I would even be happy to see any information related to the company edited out until such time someone other than myself edits it back in with references.

I also see how the article, as is, would appear on the surface as protologism (love the irony behind that word, btw). However, I am confident the word is now being used by outside sources to describe this business model. On the surface, it is such a random hybrid of structural elements, that there is literally no other way of conveying this concept without using this term - unless you want to spend thirty minutes describing the internal/external dynamics involved. You can say, "like this" or "like that" all day long, but what people seem to be calling this is "tour label," despite the fact that the original term coined by the founder of the company was "touring label." AGAIN, I would love to have the chance to work on my cites and edit in content that meets wikipedia standards for its entries.

In a research forum such as this, it’s a fine line we walk… between sharing information related to things we know and are a part of, and using such discussion as a platform for self aggrandizement. I was hoping to stay on the right side of that line. Please accept my apologies for any appearance that I had not, or was not intending to. I’m currently kicking myself for not using better cites on this all around... that would have likely avoided the extra process.

I admit that I may have had a shaky understanding at first of the cite requirements before the nominee brought this to my attention, but I would like to work more on this article as I believe that when it meets specs it will be quite valuable as part of this online reference – definitely not just some vanity piece.69.235.39.40 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty clear that the author was self-interested, with a username incorporating the company identity. What we are looking for is evidence of, as you say, outside sources who are also using the business model, called by this term or any other, as documented in reliable third-party sources such as trade industry magazines or even better general-interest publications including newspapers. Otherwise we have no proof that what you're saying about your own company's business model has any application to anybody else. Citations have another purpose in that they demonstrate the notability of a topic, by having been written about.
That said, we do thank you for your constructive attitude toward this situation. It isn't our intent to discourage anyone from editing Wikipedia, only to maintain the overall quality of the project and enforce legal guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, author has not provided any sources/references after several days and Ghits not encouraging. Wickethewok 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced neologism. ~ trialsanderrors 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7 non notable website that doesn't assert it's importance and recreation of a deleted article.. - Taxman Talk 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True North Blogcasting[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, non-notable. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I disagree with nom. Should be deleted because it fails WP:SPAM WilyD 13:29, 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 redirect to Hillsong Church, where he's mentioned. Nothing to merge really, but if someone finds more material someday that would make him notable, he won't have to restart from nothing (unless he doesn't look at the history). There's nothing offensive enough here to merit deleting the history. - Bobet 10:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Douglass[edit]

I speedied this as an nn-bio after it was tagged by an IP, but I've restored it after a request from a contributor. I feel that this article does not do a good job of saying how Jonathon meets WP:BIO, and definitely needs citations from reliable sources. Delete per WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Stifle that the article in its current form does not show notability and needs a fair bit of work. However, I feel it should be kept as it part of a collection of articles about the Hillsong Church in Sydney who are very well known in the Christian community, releasing over 50 music albums over 15 years. Marky1981 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Stifle. There is so little information there that the ball might get rolling better as part of the Hillsong Church article itself. If it becomes complete/notable of its own merit, it could be split later. Komdori 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Stifle. Agree his information could simply be merged into Hillsong Church. He is not notable. --Shrek05 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMerge (if anything is there) into Hillsong Church. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:51, 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. Rje 00:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost hunters incorporated[edit]

Non notable thrill seeking group. Also reads like an advert. Woohookitty(meow) 08:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least for now - the group seems notable enough, and I'll inform a few editorws interested in paranormal-related groups. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say delete. Based on the page creator's username (User:Nuekerk) and team founder "Greg Newkirk" name similarities, I'd peg it as a vanity page. LeeNapier 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. It WAS a vanity page. But since most ghost hunting groups are little more than friends who get together, this one is no different. Besides, researchers are beginning to study the sociological reasons people engage in this 'sport'. This entry may be useful to them. LuckyLouie 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is neither a free advertising service nor a storehouse of case studies in sociology. This group is non-notable, receiving 65 (largely self-created) ghits. Their most high-profile outlet is their Myspace page. And as LeeNapier says, it appears as though member Greg Newkirk created the page himself. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bhumiya. A small group making unverifiable claims about themselves is not a viable subject for an encyclopedia article. — Haeleth Talk 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:49, 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 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Parbury[edit]

Non-notable. Failed national candidate, failed local candidate. Martín (saying/doing) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- insufficient context, no assertion of notability. Could one day be a well-known perennial candidate, but not at the age of 27. Haikupoet 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the various criteria listed in WP:BIO. --Satori Son 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD-G7. Xoloz 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The House (2006 Film)[edit]

Does not show significance of the article in question. Also note, nothing links to it, and most of the edits were made by two people, who are most likely A)The same person, B) Worked on the film, or C) Both. Carados 08:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:Vanity/WP:Importance --66.82.9.80 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki A well-written article, and it must find some place on appropriate wiki. On Wikicities, maybe - could anyone suggest the authors an appropriate wiki for publishing? Also, I'm not so sure about insignificance - it might be notable, though chances aren't high. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-written or not, this is clearly a mis-use of Wikipedia as repository of the primary and sole documentation on a student film. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance nor a free wiki host. Films have to be documented outside of Wikipedia first, and by sources that are independent of the filmmakers. This film doesn't even have an IMDB article, let alone any reviews by film critics. (The 2006 film by this title in IMDB is a completely different film, written by David Krae.) The place for this sort of article is the authors' own web site. The article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not-notable under WP:NOTFILM guidelines, as well as WP:V and WP:OR concerns. If author(s) can cite verifiable sources that this, "Has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking," or "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial news stories describing its artistic or societal impact" I would consider it notable. Scorpiondollprincess 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? Yea, fine, delete it. I didn't realise wikipedia was so damn stingy about this stuff. I thought it was just a place to share information. The film has been submitted to festivals and we're awaiting results, but, I guess it doesn't live up to this "code of conduct" stuff yet. So, delete it. I personally don't see how it hurts anybody just sitting there, but hey, guess I didn't read the fine print. Thanks for keeping it up for the two weeks. IAmJack600 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please do not take it personally. Best of luck at your festivals! And if the film does win some awards and later achieves some notability (and you can cite some sources on that), by all means, you are always welcome to recreate this article then! Scorpiondollprincess 15:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tagging with {{db-author}}, but good luck anyway in your film festival. Feel free to re-create if you win some awards. :) --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:51, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi lock on[edit]

I wish I could think of an appropriate speedy criterion for this. It's not even a Flash animation, it's a gif! Absolutely no evidence of significance whatsoever. But - and I know you'll have ahard time believeing this - it is on YTMND. So unlike those responsible YTMNDers to make a Wikipedia article about their latest fad. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Very cool animated gif btw. -- Koffieyahoo 09:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - "The animation is hard to find" sounds almost like an admission of a lack of notability. BigHaz 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Funny and good quality work, but, ehr, not even by inclusionist standarts deserves a separate article. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Something of a cult animation with unknown origins, definitely belongs here under the art header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.30.171 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 02 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. C. Muslim School[edit]

Not a notable school. Phoenix Hacker 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the test of another editor that I have taken to heart. Agent 86 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've listed the school at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed. This is what should be done versus deleting school articles and having to start over. --Stephane Charette 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons documented at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Normally we try to improve and expand articles rather than delete them. Silensor 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. The consensus of the community is clear, and that is to keep every piece of information on a school, and all of these AFDs isn't going to change it. --ForbiddenWord 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was a "clear consensus", then we wouldn't have constant AfDs that end with "no consensus" outcomes. Please don't claim there's a consensus when there isn't. — Haeleth Talk 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The clear consensus is publicly available at this page. The throne of deletionism is not as mighty as it once was. --ForbiddenWord 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please see WP:POINT. Also, that list does not prove that there is a consensus (the result of a no-consensus AfD debate is "no consensus", not "keep", even though the article is still kept). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment- I am not disrupting Wikipedia in making my point. In fact, as that guideline says, I am stating my point in as blunt a term as possible. Please do not refer me to policy if I am not in violation of it. --ForbiddenWord 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable private school, maybe an merge and redirect to the the town. Jaranda wat's sup 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be an established and verifiable school [35] and thus necessary to encylopedic coverage of Islamic education in Richmond. Bit of a merge/redirect candidate at the moment per WP:SCHOOLS. Kappa 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encyclopedic coverage of Islamic education in Richmond would consist of an article on Islamic education in Richmond, not on individual schools. — Haeleth Talk 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it wouldn't discuss this school? Kappa 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be wrong on this, even though I live in Richmond, but I think Islamic education in Richmond is the school. I can't think of anyplace else. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the individual school is NN --Musaabdulrashid 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Yunipo 22:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A comprehensive school is notable. Erechtheus 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the school itself is not notable. WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is actually most likely the largest private Muslim-oriented school in the Greater Vancouver area. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. (WP:BEEFSTEW) -- GWO
  • Keep Schools always have a place in Wikipedia. Better try to expand than delete.Mikeeilbacher 19:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Piccadilly 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - isn't the School Project mostly for US schools? Those are the ones that User:RJHall rallies people to vote to keep. Orangehead 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to {{WPSchool}} the schools project is "an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world". There is a separate WP:BIAS project which would be very unhappy if we only kept schools in the USA. Kappa 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outcome of the school wars. Gazpacho 19:24, 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 SPEEDILY DELETED. I've been veering away from public school debates, but this is one sentence and an infobox. That fails CSD A1. As with any speedy deletion, this is non-binding, so if someone wants to write an article, this AFD poses no obstacle. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

Bridge Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable school. Phoenix Hacker 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the information in this article is already in {{RichmondBCSchools}}, and this school is non-notable anyway (Liberatore, 2006). 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elementary schools are not notable, especially as the information is duplicated. Proto::type 14:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the test of another editor that I have taken to heart. Agent 86 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the test of a Wikiproject that I have taken to heart. --Stephane Charette 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So... if I start Wikipedia:Wikiproject Hairs on Haeleth's Head and create a big template with a stub for every hair on my head, will you support me in the inevitable deletion debates, please? — Haeleth Talk 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think the hairs on your head have influenced enough lives that anyone would ever bother looking up the topic on Wikipedia, go ahead and try. Personally, I think schools typically have had students in the past and/or present, and it isn't too farfetched to think that any of those people might look up a school. Your example with a wikiproject on the hairs on your head is simply a WP:POINT, and as such, doesn't stand to compare well against any well-established project. --Stephane Charette 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • BTW, feel free to copy any of our "big templates" (your quote) if it'll help get your project off the ground quicker. In the meantime, we'd love to have you and everyone else come help us out at WP:EiC. We're currently actively working on WP:EiC#Cleanup needed, and would gladly accept either new nominations (such as this article being considered for deletion) or assistance in cleaning up the school articles that have recently been listed there. --Stephane Charette 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this article is part of a series on education in Richmond, British columbia. Nominator has failed to provide a valid reason for deletion. Silensor 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I disagree... the nomination has provided as valid a reason for deletion as say someone who references a personal essay like Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep as a reason for retention.--Isotope23 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. As per WP:DP, notability or the lack thereof is not a valid criterion for the deletion of a school article.Nicodemus75 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That is an inference on your part Nico... not explicitly stated in WP:DP. "Non-notable school" is just as valid a reason to nominate for AfD or opine delete as "clearly noteworthy subject" is for opining keep.--Isotope23 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: What I said in reference to the nomination today by Newspaper98 applies to the articles nominated by Phoenix Hacker as well. For less controversial topics, I have no problem with "non notable" as shorthand for why an article is being nominated for deletion. However, given the sharp divide on whether or not school articles are inherently encyclopedic and by what standards we determine whether a school article is encyclopedic, I would hope to see a much more substantive reason for the nomination of a school than simply "non notable". Given the lack of a firm policy on schools, it would be helpful to know why the nominator thinks the school is non-notable. I do believe that the nominations by Phoenix Hacker were made in good faith; however, all these nominations without a more detailed explanation of why they are being nominated verges on WP:POINT. This editor is helping no one by the large number of nominations (s)/he has posted for AfDs on schools with the only reason being "nn" and the large number of {{prod}}s (s)/he has placed on other school articles. I don't care if someone thinks keep or delete. It just seems that it would serve everyone better if the nomination set forth some reasoning for what should be expected to attract a lot of strong opinions. A more substantive reason for nomination would be particularly helpful for those editors who judge each school article on a case-by-case basis. Agent 86 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite my above comment, this is a clearly noteworthy subject.--Nicodemus75 18:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to the school district article, if not Delete Jaranda wat's sup 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to deprive users of information about established schools. Kappa 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a school directory. Education in Canada is an important subject. Individual Canadian schools are not. — Haeleth Talk 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elementary schools aren't generally accepted unless there's a decent notablility claim, and there isn't one here. Vickser 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. The general test for inclusion is verifiability, not something which is measured by point of view. Bahn Mi 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elementary School --Musaabdulrashid 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable elementary school. Erechtheus 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elementary schools generally don't warrant articles unless they did something noteworthy. WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline, and the creation of a wikiproject does not confer encyclopedic value to all its subjects. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bahn Mi. --Myles Long 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article constitutes a directory entry. (It has grown a little during the discussion, but not enough to make it useful content. When nominated, the content was "Bridge Elementary School is a school in Richmond, British Columbia." plus the template for Richmond, British Columbia. All that has been added is directory information.) Per WP:NOT policy, directory entries are explicitly forbidden; see subsection "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", item 7 "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business.". Additionally, one of the expectations that Wikipedia has of every wikipedia project is that the project help build an encyclopedia, which means helping decide where to draw the boundary line between topics to cover and topics to exclude. Despite the assertion above that the article passes the WP:EiC test, I see no test at that project; the word test doesn't appear on the page and I see nothing else on the page or its current talk page that amounts to a test of material worthy of inclusion. As to why Phoenix Hacker made so many of these nominations, a single user was mass creating these entries with nothing more than a single line of text. Mass creation of useless articles leads to multiple deletion discussions. As explained in the intro to Wikipedia:Notability, it is the opinion of "some [and by evidence at AFD, a large number of] editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy). Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." GRBerry 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Moreover, eventhough this is not paper, my guess is that the number of schools in the world is so large that there is simply no space to have an interesting non-stub article on all of them. -- Koffieyahoo 07:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The idea that an enumeration of its schools qualifies as articles "on education in Richmond, British columbia" is a plague on Wikipedia. Don't mistake information for knowledge. -- GWO
    • Am I supposed to be grateful to you for deciding whether what I want to know about counts as knowledge or not? Kappa 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I may quote the film Catman: Lethal Track, "For fuck's sake, man!" It's an article on an elementary school, and one that gives nothing but the most primary information, no less. -- Kicking222 18:13, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighouse Elementary School[edit]

Not a notable school. Phoenix Hacker 09:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are we trying to delete pages now before they are created? :-) -- Koffieyahoo 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link was incorrect. Fixed. Yomangani 09:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the test of another editor that I have taken to heart. Agent 86 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the very active WP:EiC project. --Stephane Charette 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it is very tiresome when members of WP:EiC (Education in Canada wikiproject) spend so much time voting for these AfD versus working on articles.  :( --Stephane Charette 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This article is part of a complete series covering education in Richmond, British Columbia. Silensor 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep n school. Nicodemus75 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the school district article, if not Delete Jaranda wat's sup 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of an active and interlinked project. Kappa 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the school is part of an active project does not make it notable. Consider instead the possibility that a WikiProject that is intended to flood the encyclopedia with schoolcruft might just be a mistaken endeavour. — Haeleth Talk 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This sentence is "bad faith" taken to a whole other level -- labelling the contributions of not just a single editor "flooding" and "cruft", but the entire wikiproject and all of it's members! Certainly makes me glad to be part of such a project! (Project=wiki as well as WP:EiC.) --Stephane Charette 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would strongly suggest, before you reply, that you come check out WP:EiC and WT:EiC to see what the project is about. "Flooding" and "cruft" are not an accurate description of what Education in Canada is trying to achieve. Instead of randomly deleting school articles, it would probably help if the article was listed at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed, and just as importantly, come spend some time helping us get through the list of schools that we're busy cleaning up. --Stephane Charette 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both sides could use an amount of viewing things from another's point of view, the way I see it. The converse of your assertion might be stated as other editors being tired of having to put inherently non-notable/unencyclopedic articles through the AFD process. Two sides to every debate, and all that. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non notable elementary school. I'd recommend the project redirect its efforts to more noteworthy articles. Vickser 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Wikipedia is a community based project, allow others to expand into areas of their own interest. Bahn Mi 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an elementary school with no claim to notability made other than it being a school. High schools are notable. Comprehensive schools that contain high school segments are notable. Middle and elementary schools are not. Erechtheus 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability. Some high schools make the cut, but only truly noteworthy elementary schools are worthy of encyclopedia articles. The creation of a wikiproject does not give encyclopedic value to its subjects, and WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. For a subject to have an entry in such a reference work, it must be possible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject - i.e., one that is well-referenced to multiple independent reliable sources. I am unable to see that the subject of this page satisfies that criterion. I am also unable to see anything that persuades me to take an eventualist view with respect to sourcing for this subject. Therefore I believe the page should be deleted. Should good sources on this subject become available in the future, an article can always be written then. —Encephalon 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bahn Mi. --Myles Long 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Moreover, eventhough this is not paper, my guess is that the number of schools in the world is so large that there is simply no space to have an interesting non-stub article on all of them. -- Koffieyahoo 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a wikiproject won't make you notable. -- GWO
  • Delete Once again, an elementary school with no assertion of notability. My town of 45,000 citizens has seven elementary schools- if every elementary school had its own article, the number of articles on WP would be greater than the number of websites that have ever existed (and perhaps will ever exist) on the Net. -- Kicking222 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with School District 38 Richmond. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how can you possibly recommend this? We have a stub for a school board, with 51 schools, and your recommendation is we take just 1 of those schools and merge it with the school board? The reason the articles are layed out the way they are is because we fully intend to have them all developped into full articles. How could we possibly merge this one stub into the school board article without making a mess of things? --Stephane Charette 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand this article on a worthy topic. Piccadilly 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. All US schools are notable. Where do you think high school kids come from? Orangehead 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect, no claim to notability outside of "all schools are notable" assertions. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be an underlying agrument that there are so many schools that only notable ones should be included. Notability (or lack there of) is not a reason for, by itself, for deletion - WP:NN is not a policy nor is anyone elses acroynm that may be applied to test an article. The vastness of a subject is also not a reason to exclude articles, WP:NOT makes the contrary arguement: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." The only valid argument is the shortness of the current articles, which I agree with. There is an active project to create and edit these pages and I believe that we should be able to ask the indulgence of our fellow wikepedians until we can get all the information into these articles. Wakemp 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if WP:N is not official policy, it justifies itself on its page via existing policy. I would similarly like to point out that for people/groups and nonprofit organizations bio (policy) and org (active proposal), respectively, there are indeed demonstrated-notability requirements. It is thus disingenuous to say that notability is not a legitimate consideration when considering an article's deletion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There are many considerations but it was sounding to me like notability (or not) was being used as the measuring stick to keep or delete. My assertion was that notablility is not a criteria in WP:AFD and it continues to be used as if it were a offical 'rule'. If that is true, regardless of the effort we put into making it a better article it could still be the subject of a AfD request. That certainly puts a chill on anyone that might consider contributing. Wakemp 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: It's being used as a measuring stick because it is a valid enough concern in evaluating the potential for an encyclopedic article to be written about the subject for it to have made it into official community guidelines. People are not citing notability as a concern just because they don't think that the subject is popular enough to have an article (indeed, popularity has nothing to do with notability), they are doing so because these subjects individually (this one, as well) do not have enough importance to be the primary focus of a single independant verifiable case study, report, or what have you. They are all taken in broad sweeps and wide-ranging reports that include thousands of schools that have no claim at all to any importance outside of the community that they are in. This is the reason people are expressing these complex ideas by explaining (in far fewer words) these sorts of concerns with the possibility of an encyclopedic article about the school in question. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: As an example of why the above reasoning does not necessarily give you a subject about which it is appropriate to write, take for example if you had an information database of a major veterinary health-care provider that had gobs and gobs of information about individual pets, including detailed health histories, biological information, ownership, etc. While this information can give you the workings of a Wikipedia article that meets many of the technical standards required by policy (Not original research, verifiability, reliable sourcing, citations, etc.), that does not mean that an article for each individual pet would make for appropriately encyclopedic topics. By this logic that is not be appropriate, and it is fairly plain to see that it would be a glaring error on the grounds (I would say of notability, but) that Wikipedia is not for arbitrary collection of information. The standard is something that has come out through consensus, and the fact that the WP:N essay itself is not policy is only evidence that people think notability standards should be addressed in proprietary categories, as I mentioned earlier. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe the template needs to be modified or deleted also. Vegaswikian 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What would you modify the template to get it to do? Note that this template is used by nearly 1000 articles, so I'm curious to see what your recommendation would be once it is deleted as you suggest. --Stephane Charette 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either not provide links to other then high schools or delete it. By building a template that is linked to over 1,000 times, it serves to fuel AfD discussions on schools. Why create a template, {{RichmondBCSchools}}, that allows editors to blindly walk into this ongoing consensus issue battle? Why do these schools need to be listed in 1,000 articles? If you check links, then there appears to be fewer then 50 using this template, so are we talking about the same template. Vegaswikian 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But {{RichmondBCSchools}} and your reasons push the position that all schools are notable. This is clearly not supported by consensus and that is why including those in a template like that is an issue. Vegaswikian 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, navigation bars are exactly that -- navigation bars. To take the classic example (Star Wars) from many discussion, see Peragus II and the navigation bar {{StarWarsPlanets}}. The same in this case, where our school boards have navigation bars. When stubs gets created, then we have stubs to work with, and when they don't have enough content or the quality is lacking, then they get listed at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed with a description of what is wrong with the article. Go ahead and visit that last link to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. --Stephane Charette 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please delete, please delete because it's NN and we all know it. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exactly which section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion describes your interpretation of NN and how it directly relates to deleting school articles? Please recall that WP:NN is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. --Stephane Charette 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please see my above comment regarding notability standards. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent and recent AfD discussions, most notably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annieville Elementary School. The policy discussion at WP:SCHOOLS should be resurrected instead of changing precedent at AfD. Accurizer 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those recommending deletion, please clarify if - regardless of the effort we put into making it a better article, it should still be the subject of a AfD request? Wakemp 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I have said above, I would have no problem including the article if it could be shown that the school has been the subject of multiple reliable sources of independant coverage. So far it has not been shown to have been the subject of more than an entry in a census. Failing that, however, I think that the multiple substub entries on each individual elementary school would be better placed in the school district instead of spread out to an unacceptably sparse level over dozens of almost-contentless articles. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article will benefit from improvement, and is clearly identified as a stub. I am most impressed by the level of structure, organization and thought demonstrated by the WP:EiC initiative and its team members, which makes it clear to me that the promise of expanding these into yet more productive and useful articles is eminently justifiable. I would like to suggest that other areas (perhaps organized by state in the US) would greatly benefit from the methodolgy developed as part of WP:EiC, and I will certainly take advantage of these concepts in expanding the scope of WP:NJ, which has craeted articles for most New Jersey school districts and a significant percentage of the state's high schools. Bravo WP:EiC! Alansohn 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outcome of the school wars. Gazpacho 19:25, 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 deleted per CSD A6. Xoloz 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rigby[edit]

Unverified allegations against living person (criminal violence, possible murder) and no substantiation of claim to notability. Mereda 09:27, 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. Just counting votes, consensus is iffy here. The deletes put up a more cogent argument: this fails WP:WEB. Why is that important? Because this game apparently isn't notable enough to have even a single independent non-trivial reliable source to cite regarding it. With no reliable sources, this article, if it is to be neutral, is at best an unexpandable stub. Which, if you eliminate the unsourced puffery in the "Customizability" section, is pretty much its state right now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GraalOnline[edit]

Does not conform with these guidelines, as well as these. Members of both sides seem to agree that because no resolution can be found, this should be deleted. Administrators also agree, and there is a growing concensus for this to occur on the article's talk page.

  • Comment as Nominator: The reason that I nominated this, as well as the above reasons, was that I believe that this article is unfixable. Because of GraalOnline's staunch opposition (harrsasing phone calls to Wikimedia Corp, which Brad Patrick described to me as: "That's how [this issue] was brought to my attention, that and the harassing phone calls from the crazy Frenchman.") to anything added which doesn't have a positive connotation and serve as an advertisment, there will never be a NPOV on this page, unless GraalOnline corporation members are prevented from removing material. I would accept this resolution (GO staff being banned from removing material) as an alternate to deleting it, but if that isn't possible, delete it will be. Killfest2—Daniel 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now see where all this is coming from "a crazy Frenchman" (strange from an Australian and some American guys), that's the real problem not the article. About your statement about Graalonline removing material, we have removed the unsourced criticism content in conformity with wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Who are you to judge me and my corporation? Are you above of all wikipedia rules to be able to decide what article should be deleted or not and who should be able to edit the article or not? We have given URL of articles speaking about graalonline and lot of people think that the article should not be deleted pointing to wikipedia rules. Graal unixmad 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Chill out. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the critisism was sourced in this article, and when it was sourced, it was from a source which the wiki does not allow. I hope that you are not suggesting that this article go against wiki rules? What is wrong with fixing the article, and not adding things that people cannot source until they can per wiki guidelines?--Moon Goddess 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referred to this page by Danny as a likely reason for this page being deleted:
"If the rules are unhelpful, ignore them and do your best to improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality."
So if i understand, if the wikipedia rules don't allow you to delete an article about a game you have never played, then just break wikipedia written rules and destroy it for improving Wikipedia's quality. This remind me something... Perhaps a country declaring war to another for improving the world even if it's against all rules made by ONU. Graal unixmad 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore that last statement as nothing more than a distracting red herring. While I do believe there are enough reviews of graal floating around on the web to base an article off of, your edits are obviously acting in bad faith. You claim that negative comments are deleted by your corporation because of being unreferenced (which is correct in general, although bad form in a long standing dispute without discussion) - HOWEVER, take this statement currently on the page. "Perhaps Graal's greatest strength is its customizability. An intuitive editor allows even the most technically-inept players to build levels of their own, complete with custom graphics and interactive NPCs. The latter are developed using a simple - yet surprisingly powerful - language named GScript, the syntax of which was loosely inspired by Java and which lately has adapted some semantics of the scripting language of the Torque Game Engine. The target audience of the game has not yet used these features to their fullest extent. [citation needed]". That entire paragraph, consisting of weasel words such as "greatest strength", "intuitive editor", and "simple-yet surprisingly powerful", was made without a single reference, independent or otherwise, to back it up. You're acting like an interest group lobbying for your article, obeying the rules only when it suits your position. That is blatantly abusing Wikipedia policy. JoshWook 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GraalOnline team have not written the wikipedia Graalonline article (and the part you are talking about), the article has been written by someone called Loriel, this graalonline player is the creator of 'http://wiki.graal.us/' that has no relationship with us. You should compare 'http://wiki.graal.us/Graal' and you will see the actual article has not been written by GraalOnline Staff. Also have a look at other game article like RuneScape and tell me if you don't see weasel words, the article is full of make "RuneScape one of the top online games", "Unlike many similar game", "RuneScape places a lot of emphasis on ... allowing players ", ... Graal unixmad 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Runescape page is heavily referenced, notice the footnote after "Runescape is one of the top online games." Also, I did not accuse GraalOnline of writing the paragraph in question - I only question why you are so intent on removing unreferenced negative information while ignoring the same standards on unreferenced positive information. JoshWook 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch what we have deleted? It's nothing about removing negative information about the game but defamatory and false content against Me, the GraalOnline Staff and the Game. Perhaps you have not followed the story but the section has been written a few weeks ago by 2 players because they have been banned from GraalOnline for not respecting rules ( User:Warcaptain and User:Di4gram. Have a look who have modified the article and made this war... Graal unixmad 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the crux of my argument - if the reason for deleting what you refer to as "defamatory and false content" was that it fell under WP:OR, then why have you allowed the other unreferenced information to stand? User:JoshWook 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were not the creator of this article (article created long time ago) so we prefered to discuss on the talk page (What have done Stefan Knorr and Me). We have deleted the defamatory and false content because it was new content and it was also not discussed with anyone before being added. Also we are not experienced Wikipedia User and we have learned the hard way. Graal unixmad 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To throw in my other 2 cents: Almost whenever I heard of Graal, I also heard about Unixmad's and the forum administration's unfairness towards the players. So if you like it or not, this issue also concerns users of your game. But then, as your actions were only announced in your private forum that is not immune to later modificiation or private conversations that are not at all quotable, there is probably no way to state this in a "verificable" way. Forum posts of banned persons were altered, and players critising the action of Graal's administration were silenced by threatening them with bans. --Philipp Kern 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the User:Loriel who unixmad attributed the aforequoted weasel-words to. However, they originated in this edit of the Graal article on our Graal wiki. While I hosted the wiki at that time, it was not entirely written by me and this edit was not my doing. Also, while I am not currently associated with Graal and was not when that edit was made, I used to be a game master/administrator and involved in or managing some of Graal's projects. While I suppose that the wording used was not entirely NPOV considering my past enjoyment of the customisability of Graal, it still does not appear particularly glamourising or advertising to me. Having a "greatest strength" does not imply any notable strongness compared to other things, and "surprisingly powerful" only served to relativate "simple" which I believe is entirely justified considering most of the game's content, outside of the actual engine, is written in this language.
However I would like to point out that I also made plenty of "negative" comments regarding Graal, the volunteer administration and so on, which were partially lost by vandalism (that went unnoticed by me until the recent edit-war when I did not dare to interfere anymore) and by the administrative intervention after the mediation. While pf course it was entirely unsourced (apart from a link to our wiki) as I was blissfully oblivious of Wikipedia policies at the time, but hey, nobody complained, and it appeared way more balanced and less "dramatic" than the current version.
Loriel 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kicking the indentation back to a reasonable level. User:Graal unixmad, this is a valid and serious point. It looks, on its face to be POV protection. To maintain a truly NPOV, both unsourced negative and positive commentary needed to be removed. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I originally said to delete this article :-P Oh well, but hey its working out right anyway --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The company in question is CyberJoueurs, not GraalOnline by itself; the latter is rather a published product. --Philipp Kern 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed into Keep (previous Neutral) on date of signature. It think an unbiased entry should be present, which neither serves as a plain advertisement by CyberJoueurs, nor as a plain flame of their administration. --Philipp Kern 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but way too much history for a non-partisan observer (I like to think that's me) to wade through. I suspect if it does get deleted you'll need it protected to prevent recreation. Yomangani 10:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your right, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to salt the earth without at least one inappropriate recreation WilyD 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB and I'm sure I could swear at least one other criterion. Anyways, get your axe and give this article the treatment it deserves. WilyD 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm now willing to work with another couple of users to try and bring this article up to standards.Di4gram 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have always known it didn't meet WP:WEB, I just didn't know the policies very well. As somebody who has been following this dispute in it's entirety, including talk pages involved, and many others related to Graal Online, this is the only way to resolve it. I'm sure of it. --RogueShadow 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keep in mind that the inability to find reliable anti-GraalOnline sources is not a reason to delete the article. Also - note to closing administrator: keep in mind that there are a lot of people involved in this article dispute and all but two or three of them are staunchly-anti-GraalOnline - or at least anti-GraalOnline management. Don't read this as support for or against deletion (in fact I'm leaning towards delete if I vote at all) but it's something to keep in mind. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-GraalOnline" is a very funny phrase to use, whether or not it preceeds the word "management". You seem to be dangerously close to following that game's management in that you are defining critics as "anti". I'll still let good faith guide me away from saying that you are speaking under their direction, but please don't suggest otherwise by using rather black-and-white terminology.
Huh? I certainly wouldn't classify too many in there as pro-GraalOnline, would you? You prefer another phrase, throw it out there. Pro-GraalOnline-criticism seems a little unwieldy to me but that's fine too. As for www.suiffix.com, I can't even figure out how to use the site so how reliable can it be? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with di4gram in the "anti-Graal" thing. If you are so eager to condemn contributors as anti-GraalOnline, I just have to consider you biased or heavily influenced by the GraalOnline management. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, just trying to keep count of people who wanted the criticism section vs. those that didn't. It felt like the ratio was weighed heavily in favor of the former and, if you consider that two of the users in the latter group were blocked indefinitely, the ratio approaches infinity I think. Maybe I'm wrong and it was just the same pro-criticism-section (is that better?) users posting over and over but it seemed like it was becoming quite a hive mentality. Whichever, take a look at how many of my 12,000+ edits here have been related to online gaming at all and reconsider how affiliated I am with the GraalOnline management. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about anti-Cyberjoueurs? Is that better? Semantics, semantics... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. It seems very hasty to assume that those who think that accepting criticism is important are "anti"-anything. Loriel 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, you clearly get my point so just substitute whatever term makes you happy. If both sides like to be called pro-something, then go for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "pro-opinion"?--Kuribo 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not re-posting the mini-essay; see talk page if you want to (re)read it. --That Jason 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering Phil's comment above, I see that the article indeed describes a game and not the company behind the game, except where necessary to explain criticism, so the policy cited in the nomination is not applicable at all. Also, it seems pretty questionable to me to consider an online game/community "web content" as per WP:WEB. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Delete - the discussion has transcended the reasons given in the nomination that I originally considered and it seems only a clearly biased subset of possible sources (amateur game review sites) would be admitted as sources. I would prefer no article at all over a rather useless advertisement. I find the guidelines that are cited to support this wholly inadequate for an article of such limited scope, so I doubt that anything good is going to come of this. Sorry, guys. Loriel 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retracting my vote. Some of the involved party are taking this issue way too serious and personal, and I do not want to lose friends over this. Loriel 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no fair way to cite this article so that every party involved will be satisfied. Also, if you are going to be strict about the Wikipedia rules then there are no valid sources since the Official Graal online site is not neutral and you wont allow forums. --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, I'm going to say that Graal doesn't quite measure up with WP:WEB. Graal Online is not well known and this "Civil War" won't be resolved on Wikipedia, that's for sure. Quamsta 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, conditionally If the style is good, and in depth, and information is cited, then WP:WEB should only be considered a single strike against it, Not a kill. i kan reed 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If Unixmad is so against any criticism, whether true or not, there may as well not be an article about the game at all instead of a very one-sided article. -Daltonls 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB fails WP:NPOV Vipercat 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Gillespee 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I used to play GraalOnline back in the day, but I don't think it meets WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What do corporate notability guidelines have to do with this? This article is about a game, not a company. Same for web guidelines. Besides, my understanding is that it's not notability that's the problem here. We list many lesser-known video games. The problem is the inability of the editors to properly NPoV the article. As there's nothing about the topic that suggests it's inherrently PoV, this doesn't seem like a reason to delete, more a reason to refer to the neutrality project. We don't scrap things because we have difficulty writing good articles. Look at any article abotut an ethnic group for examples.Ace of Sevens 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete* Things should be worked out, instead of sestroying a great resource--Xc4l1br 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you, but not enough people care that are posting here, to do it correctly. It is really a shame that it will be deleted. --Moon Goddess 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Adrian78 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Spiderweb (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 3 edits, all of which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep If GraalOnline article need to be delete because of this false reason then 50% of wikipedia need to be deleted Markis 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Markis (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 2 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Antidot12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 5 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: Last 4 votes smell a little meaty... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't seem necessary. Closing admins are allowed the discretion to give new/inexperienced users less voting weight if they choose. And let's be civil regarding people's experience with English please. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds like I interpreted you just fine - unless you have some analysis of unixmad's specific writing pattern. Sounds like a lot of people who use English as a second language - meaning zillions of people. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but complete rewrite: GraalOnline was one of the first MMORPGs of this kind. It was once very popular, but lost many users when much of the service switched away from a free to a pay-to-play service. The article should be on Wikipedia, but not in the current form, which seems to have more than a little too much propaganda. --Gau 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, the article was way less one-sided before the recent edit-warring. Consider just reverting to an older version and going from there. Loriel 10:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your assessment. --Philipp Kern 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is customary to point out accounts that seem to have been created solely to vote; I'd like to point out to our newcomers that they should not remove such notices. --Golbez 08:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let it be cleaned up and developed. Almost all games are kept on Wikipedia. Orangehead 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this user is currently suspected of being involved in sockpuppetry. Killfest2—Daniel 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - Smaller game are on wikipedia so Graalonline should be allowed to get an article. Also see comments bellow Graal unixmad 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You own it neither. Keep that in mind. --Philipp Kern 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've gone through and read a lot of the information on wikipedia about this particular dispute, and while I'm sympathetic to the "I give up" position, I think we all need to step back and breathe for a second. I've never played Graal before but I've heard about it before this mess - surely it's been notable enough to get a mention independently somewhere before. As far as the criticism, "positive", and "negative" information is concerned, I could care less as long as there are reliable sources listed. If not, tag and eventually delete, as per the mediation dispute. The corporate website is fine for information on game mechanics, publication date and history (as long as the information cited avoids advertisement and blatant self-praise), etc. - that stuff is NPOV and their website is nothing more than a convenient source. If it is later vandalized, temp. protect the page. Don't let wikipedia be bullied by a couple of minor online communities. In short, I'm sure this can all be worked out before the publication deadline. 129.61.46.16 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment I don't known if this is common on wikipedia that someone introducing a request for deletion try to influence the vote saying that everyone agree to delete the article. But the team managing the game and the creators of the game (Me and Stefan Knorr) are completly against having the article deleted. Could be also interesting to ask the > 300000 players that have downloaded the game and open an account if the game is WP:WEB or not.

Also if a game giving 60000 results on google and having more than 20 reviews is WP:WEB then lot of other articles should be deleted see this list of review:

Graal unixmad 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The preceeding comment by unixmad was originally placed in the header of the AFD with the nomination. I'm going to assume good faith in that they meant to add it to the bottom of the page as a new comment and were not trying to interfere with the nomination itself, so I moved it down appropriately as a new comment. I think they're right about the reviews though - they do at least attest to the notability of the game. Would it be possible to use those as a basis for a rewrite? 129.61.46.16 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
      • Those reviews appear pretty onesided, so you might as well replace the article with an advertisement copy&pasted from the game's website. Though I am laughing pretty hard at "modified version of C, know as Graal Script.". Loriel 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I did not mean to suggest that the reviews are balanced in coverage, only that they qualify as sources independent of graal online and therefore testify to the notability of the game. I guess the main issue I have with this AFD is that it was nominated for deletion because it was not notable enough, when the real problem is the content dispute. Unfortunately, content disputes generally do not fall under any deletion guideline that I'm aware of. Of course, they also usually don't result in Wikimedia's lawyers stepping in...so this may be a highly unusual case all around. 68.106.198.28 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
            • Comment While I hate to pass the buck here, you have to understand that even if the entirety of the internet and print world has been purged of negative information on a subject, it is simply not Wikipedia's job to publish that negative information first. That's original research, and goes against one of wikipedia's foundation policies. You may have the right to get the word out about Graal, but basically, you don't have the right to do it here until it's done in a reliable, peer-reviewed source elsewhere. 68.106.198.28 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
                • Comment No, Wikipedia does not condone advertisements - many articles about non-notable games or websites, usually written by the owners of the product, are deleted on a regular basis. The websites listed above, however, confirm in my mind that Graal is not something invented last week. It has a fairly long history for an online game, and is notable enough for an article. Most of those reviews do not appear to be affiliated with the site, and even if they don't mention the personality conflicts that seem to be the issue here, their impressions of the game aren't overwhelmingly positive either. I guess the thing is, that while a game or website may be notable enough for a wikipedia article, not all of its components (in this case, its forums and spin-off forums, I guess) are necessarily worthy of the same treatment. JoshWook 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly this is getting old. This wikipedia war is not going to end. I can see perfectly why it's nominated for deletion as it is one-sided and more advertisement friendly. Everything put in it is simply on Graal Online's side and as much as I love the game, this wiki is not part of Graal Online and is control by the community. I don't see why both sides can't come to a conclusion and by allowing the article to go back up just means the war will start again. Deletion seems to be the easiest method, this whole situation has gotten so complicated and has become such a big issue that it disserves itself to be on the wiki as it's an issue. It just seems like a bunch of accounts are being made to say "Keep" now as if it truly matters... just let it go and forget it for a while and if it is deleted just wait a while to make a new one. Even when you make a new one, people are going to alter it because that's how wiki works. Once someone alters it then more arguments will happen on Graal Onlines side. It's more likely in the future that there will be citable information for critism for the game... even those reviews of the game are not very good but in no way reveal any critizism. Brandon Mitchell 5:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would love to see a good, Graal article here, like other games have. Just don't add anything that cannot be sourced, until it can be by wiki rules.--Moon Goddess 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Graal unixmad and Philipp Kern. WP:NPOV is not a valid reason for deletion. If the article is poor as is, then fix it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd hate to see a precedent established that you can prevent anything negative from being said about you on Wikipedia through empty law suit threats. Jack Thompson (attorney) threatened to sue Wikipedia and his page is still intact along with all the information that makes him look bad. Ace of Sevens 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article has 84 references at the bottom including CNN, Miami Herald, L.A. Times, etc., etc. As soon as someone can find reliable verification for the serious injuries caused by Cyberjourers, feel free to add them. As far as the alleged threatened legal action, it's sad that that's what it took to get the editors here to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there somethign wrong with having an article without mentioning the negatives unless sources can be found? Ace of Sevens 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh. No. That's why I voted keep. And you did as well. We agree on that but apparently don't agree with Wikipedia's actions being a bad precedent. To me, WP's actions were very justified - it's just unfortunate that things had to go that far to get the policies enforced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, questionable notability. Kotepho 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Even though I still believe this article is irrelevant and hard to find good sources for, and still should be deleted. I have found a source to cite that Stephane Portha is a harsh individual and threatens his customers and staff http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.petitiononline.com/bhunter/petition.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDMCA%2BPORTHA%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG note the article is originally in french and some words may be hard to understand, but it is easy to understand the basic picture. This is not intented as anything but a statement of facts about an event pertenent to this topic. Vipercat 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say it but isn't that a site where anyone can contribute anything? That's like using unverified information on Wikipedia as a source. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, which is why I did not attempt to directly post it on the article, but rather put it in for consideration here. The standards for verified information in relation to the nature of this article makes the whole situation difficult to be fair either way. All of the information is going to come from some person or another from the internet, you are not going to get verified pictures of over 300,000 people, or even 30 people to stand and pose in a picture with todays newspaper and a sign saying "I PLAYED GRAALONLINE, or that GRAAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING AND IN C++" and even if they did exist I do not think they would organize in such a fashion, make the cardboard signs and do such a thing. This whole situation is not an easy one, no matter who you are, if you are to make the GraalOnline wikipedia article more relevant, factual, and verified, it is simply not the nature of non-mainstream lesser popular online games. Vipercat 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good to have both view points from both long time players/members of Graal, and new players/members. It's just so hard to be able to find sources that will be accepted.--Moon Goddess 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unixmad found a few different independent sources for reviews so it's not impossible. That's what pushed me over the edge into voting keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, now if we can keep the article from being deleted, maybe we can make it a notable, decent article. --Moon Goddess 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a longtime player of GraalOnline I'd hate to see the article go, but that being said after seeing the CyberJoueurs staff conduct on the page I can't put myself to give this a Keep vote. But since when did we start deleting things because non-wikipedians asssociated with that article vandalised repeatedly in an attempt to ruin the NPOV...isn't it usually just protected? Canadian-Bacon 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm willing to help rewrite this article NPOV. I am sorry that things have descended to this, people have gotten sucked in from both sides and reputations have been ruined/put on the line on both sides. I think that this article should stay, and that both sides can work together to make a decently informative and NPOV article. I'm pretty much eliminating my previous comments; they were based on false pretenses. This thing has spiralled out of control, and I think that civility has pretty much been shot in the face by people on both sides (including me). I think that deleting this article would be for the wrong reasons. Di4gram 16:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a lost process, some people having lot of time to loose and some wikimedia staff have decided that the article must be deleted, so i will not loose any more time fighting a system that is corrupted. Thanks to all of you that have spent lot of time trying to get this article published and to wknight94 that have been neutral and given lot of good argument since day 1 of this story. Graal unixmad 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Um, what? Do you have some knowledge the rest of us are unaware of? JoshWook 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • After extensive discussions between myself, Wikimedia Foundation and Graal Unixmad, obviously Wikimedia have told Graal Unixmad the bad news, so he's giving up. Killfest2—Daniel 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If wikimedia staff have decided this must be deleted, why are we having an AfD discussion? Ace of Sevens 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • i didn't had any discussion with you or wikimedia about the deletion of this article, i give up because wikipedia is managed like a bananas republic Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Abuse of power WP:OFFICE ,so why loose time when the decision will not be taken in conformity with the wikimedia rules. Graal unixmad 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just because you cannot control everything on the internet does not make it a "Bananas Republic" Wikipedia staff was far more reasonable, and gave you far more chances than I would have given you if I had control over this situation, you signed a mediation then broke the mediation agreement by threatening people over the phone with lies. I think we all know who and what the "Bananas Republic" is here... Vipercat 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unix, for a second I was sort of miffed, because I thought someone high up in wikimedia had contacted you and decided to over-rule the discussion taking place here. The fact is that a number of people who frankly find your behavior deplorable in these debates have voted "keep", including myself. The most likely result right now, especially since you posted a number of reviews, is a "no consensus" result, which will result in the article staying. The nomination to delete was not brought up by wikimedia, so stop with these conspiracy theories. There's no reason to cry foul - it's childish and distracts from the points of the debate itself. On another note, I do not believe wikipedia should cover your dispute with your members until a reliable source can be found to document it - but on a personal level, I very much hope that a well known gaming website does a story on how you treat your customers. JoshWook 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that happens, hopefully more than just a handful of people would be included in the survey. ^^ --Moon Goddess 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, and while you're on it: Please do not include administrative staff. --Philipp Kern 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's notable, a person uninvolved with the site can write about it Karwynn (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another possible source for consideration is http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=0a0d5d069e2f5481d42cd2824c93bafb&t=42339 this is a libelous and slanderous message against me from Unixmad from his own site, with no external citation, no direct proof, and no prior permission to post my name and personal information on the internet. This supports the criticism that Stephane Portha is a harsh individual, and also illustrates the kinds of attempts at illegal public attacks, slander, and threats he does. Vipercat 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's not a source that could be used for a wikipedia article. Take your story to CNN, or even a local paper, and get them to *publish* a story about Portha's harshness. Even then, it would be greatly preferred if you stop using wikipedia as a soapbox. JoshWook 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viper....just stop. Stop trying to use the wiki for revenge. --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not make either of those articles, Unixmad himself published that in his own forums, and the other on PetitionOnline was made by someone who I thought was the most pro-graal person in the world, the former GraalOnline admin MagicalTux who was once very close and big time in the GraalOnline staff until he was clearly betrayed and threatened at some point by Unixmad. So I am trying to get revenge by using magical mind control fairies to make them both write things that makes unixmad look bad? And some people try and call me crazy... Vipercat 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold up - you're missing the point. From everything I've read, I'm fully on your side on a personal level...however, I honestly don't think Wikipedia is the right media to vent your complaints. Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia. I would not expect the Encyclopedia Brittanica to cover a non-notable dispute, using only forums and personal emails as evidence - Wikipedia is not constrained by the limits of paper, but it still strives for the same quality standards. An encyclopedia is, in general, a compendium of the research of others - and by research, I mean of the intensive, peer-reviewed kind. That happens in a newspaper and even more in sources like scientific journals, and there are simply no controls or authority behind an individual, or even a group of individuals, posting semi-anonomyously to an online forum. It amounts to original research, and is not appropriate subject matter for an encyclopedia. User:JoshWook 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign in - and I am kinda new, although I've been contributing as an IP for a bit)[reply]
    • Wow. Well said. I think I'm smelling a future admin! Why don't you have a User account? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where the problem lies. Nobody has written a documentary or scholarly artice, or published book in print that has been extensively peer reviewed on this matter. You are also correct this is an encyclopedia, but if it is not a relevant subject such as Elephants then how can it fit into an encyclopedia in the first place? How can any game? Vipercat 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy - there are lots of print magazines dedicated to games, and even more online. The business as a whole is undeniably massive, on the same order of magnitude as film, and receives a good deal of media coverage. It doesn't have to necessarily be scholarly, it only has to meet wikipedia's internal standards for verifiability and reliability. And verifiable is not the same as truth - just because something is true doesn't mean it warrants coverage on wikipedia. Actually, see the big discussion I had up above in this AFD that now looks like I had it with myself under 129.61.46.16 and 68.106.198.28 because the other guy deleted his comments when he changed his opinion ;) JoshWook 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically I just need to talk some random gaming website with arbitrary standards of verificating content into publishing my rantings, and suddenly my opinion becomes more important than that of a dozen people arguing the same topic on several forums and wiki discussions? I am not sure it should be this easy. Loriel 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...don't take this the wrong way, but that's just how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a forum - it's an encyclopedia. Go to your local decent-sized library and check out the reference section. Ignore the Brittanica and find a more obscure, specialized encyclopedia, such as an encyclopedia on Occult phenomena (yes, they do exist). And then look at how the articles are written and, more importantly, the references. You'll find that the encyclopedia, no matter how obscure, has not gone out and conducted its own study and interviewed people about their experiences with alien abductions - it relies on the published "research" of others. There might be other wikis out there with different standards, but as an encyclopedia, wikipedia is not the place to *conduct* research, it's a place to *report* on it. JoshWook 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link Feel free to add it to User:Daniel/GraalOnlineSandbox, which I will use to create an extensive and detailed criticism section for the GraalOnline article if this AfD is deemed to have not reached a concensus. Hopefully with my knowledge of the loopholes and precise definitions of policies, I can advert a situation where someone rings up Wikimedia FOundation and cries until they get what they want. Killfest2—Daniel 10:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DB is just continuing is sad work on the GraalOnline article, he will have the privilege to talk with Viper :) Good luck. Graal unixmad 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it flew over the both of you completely. What Daniel is attempting to make, as far as I can tell, is a sandbox for a criticism section with notable citation. I don't find it "sad work", rather, I find it as an attempt to give the Criticism section a chance, which was unfairly removed before the 7 days after mediation, due to Unixmad's bickering over the phone, which in turn blew off Daniel's faith in the Wikipedia system. That's just an analysis on my part. In any case, that's all only if the article isn't deleted.--Kuribo 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Clean Havok (T/C/c) 12:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well well well, Graal Online are back to their old tricks. Why did you block my account on GO? I have broke no rules, and yet you continute to oppress people who disagree with you. Anyone willing to explain? Killfest2—Daniel 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Daniel, while I understand that unixmad's user page is currently blocked from editing, could you move that comment somewhere off of this AFD? Email, a forum, something. Yes, I understand that you posted here to publicly out him, but wikipedia is not a soapbox. This page is big enough already without voicing a personal off-wiki dispute. Delete my comment too when you do (later edit: Daniel, check your talk page). JoshWook 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Sorry, but I have direct permission to post here, from a WMF foundation member. If the comment goes, so does the persons' head who removed it. Killfest2—Daniel 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Daniel, what account are you talking about? I assumed you were killfest2 based on your email address, but that account is apparently not banned. Loriel 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Just checked the account killfest2, you are right Loriel, he is not banned at all. Graal unixmad 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How come when others make remarks such as what you just made, Daniel, they are told to not post things like that here? (Nice threat, btw =/ ) --Moon Goddess 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that tells them not to post criticisms thus far has been Unixmad. And defacing and deleting articles and criticisms, especially in the talk page is considered defacement, defacement is not allowed, it is not a threat, just a simple fact of life, one which some people can't seem to deal with... Vipercat 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, neither I nor anyone else ever threatened to remove anything - I simply asked if he would move this particular branch of the discussion off of the AFD for the article, since whether he was banned from Graal or not has nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should include an article of GraalOnline. I still hold to that position, and ask that Daniel and others please continue this discussion elsewhere. JoshWook 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sorry. Loriel 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JR Parz[edit]

Self-published author of erotic fiction does not belong on Wikipedia. Originally prod'ded, along with related articles Master PC and Master PC (Universe), but the JR prod was removed by an anon. Danny Lilithborne 10:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, unless author(s) can cite verifiable sources to establish notability. According to WP:BIO, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" are notable. I see no evidence of that here. Scorpiondollprincess 14:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable - handful of Ghits to his own site(s). Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Nations Resources[edit]

Delete all fancruft pages about Rise of Nations. A deletion discussion was already done for one of them, but the others weren't included: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial Age (Rise of Nations) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (more pages possibly following):

Dammit 10:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CEXC Golden Squirrel[edit]

Completely non-notable trophy. Fails the Google test. I strongly doubt it's location is classified information. eaolson 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oh, it fails the google test huh? heres a quote from Wikipedias Verifed, and Notable article on being Notable "There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Search Engine Test (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)". My private website Samscape passes the Google test test however, and is significantly less notable the the CEXC Golden Squirrel. --70.239.89.210 23:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unverifiability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one high school's cross-country trophy, nonnotable even if they tell us where it is. NawlinWiki 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Kukini 21:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IN THE DEFENSE OF THIS ARTICLE
I the Author, should like to say that Wikipedia is not as though it seems, while it seems that Wikipedia is a collaboration of the greatest mind, designed to distribute knowledge to the world, this presumption is sadly, false. Wikipedia is a collaboration of the Tightest Wads in the history of the world. this article is proposed for deletion because it is "NonNotable, and Unverified". I would like to address these seperatly.
NonNotable:
This is an opinion, what is considered notable for some is not notable for others. take for instance my opinion involving the article on "Pratt County, Kansas" while I particularly do not find it interesting or even mildly neccesary, I would never propose it for deletion just because I can't think of anybody who would want to read it. because I realize that I might be wrong. of the 6 billion people in the world, even if only one person was prevented from reading it, I would never delete it, simply because I could not rest knowing I but a price on human knowledge.
UnVerified:
This is the same thing they told Columbus when he claimed the world was round. how may I rally people to my cause, how may I find witnesses to "verify" my findings if the article is deleted, moreoever hypothesize that it is wrongly accused of being unverified, the article is then deleted. thus information on this topic is even less verified. it leads to a vicous cycle in which the only important knowledge is, in the end, that which an elite group of WikiJunkies (such as the man who proposed this article for deletion) says is in important. I will never stand for that kind of Aristocracy.
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not verification. Wikipedia requires verification from other sources. It's one of the few official WP policies. eaolson 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Comment Wikipedia is not verification to wikipedia. it is however considered a reputable source by third parties, thus a third party would have a harder time finding the info if it can't be found on wikipedia. information on the topic refers to global information, not just wikipedia.--Misery507 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Verification can be simply faked, since other reputable sources include the article subject itself. such as the source for the article on penny arcade, the information is pulled from penny-arcade.com If I really wanted this to fly, nothing is stopping me from making www.goldsquirrel.com and citing it as a source. --Misery507 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Conclusion, I would like to say, that should WikiPedia decide to delete this article. it would be a direct violation in open information sharing policy, and not at all like the world of limitless knowledge I hoped we lived in.--Misery507 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The source of the squirrel is in fact classified in the sense that it is limited to "Certian classes of people" mostly senior members of the cross and track team. your mistake again is a matter of opinion. the Federal government isn't the only group of people that can "classify" information.
P.P.S. It's not a trophy, it is a keepsake and symbol.
  • Update See the article for an uploaded photo of this shirt, and appearing squirrel as the article states the squirrel can be found...hope this increases "verifiability" --Misery507 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The CEXC Golden Squirrel part of the heritage of the people of Columbus Indiana.

The story of the golden squirrel has happened to reach the teachers at Columbus East and the freshman english teachers have created an assignment for the freshmen to try to learn more about their school by doing a research project. One of the topics to be researched is the Golden Squirrel. If the teachers of Columbus East High School find the topic credible and verifiable i believe it has what it takes to make it on wikipedia.--User:veritas32914:07, 01 august 2006 (UTC)

  • keep per nom. this is something about my high school, its important to the cross country team so I say keep it jwlx 17:17, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Madras Tamil slang words[edit]

This was spun off from the main article of madras Tamil to make it smaller, if this will be deleted it will only get re attached to the main article. This List needs to be seen in whole with its link to Madras Tamil not alone.
Don't you think it would be better to first have an agreed definition of what makes a list encyclopaedic? I agree with what you said that some are better moved to wikitionary, but at the moment, I'm still not clear what the difference between List of Internet slang and this list is. -- Arvind 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See withdrawl of gay slang nominations[36] These nominations are selective, arbitary and even may be prejudicial towards minorities sexual or otherwise. Keeping Gay slang and removing Madras Slang will a demonstartion of that intent and bias.I strongly urge this nomionation to be withdrawn till all issues are resolved, otherwise this just another Book burningHuracane 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now until there is a reasonable plan to transwiki all such lists, per Arvind --Samuel Wantman 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a Wictionary article NOT a Wikipedia article. 60.231.141.11 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 2nd edit on wikipedia. --JJay 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article as per Arvind request
    • Discounted. anon 216.95.23.216 . `'mikka (t) 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Like Arvind says, we keep other similar list. The Tamils and their language is important. Orangehead 15:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discounted. New account. `'mikka (t) 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the points stated by Arvind and Samuel Wantman. -- Ponnampalam 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least until the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists of Words reaches a consensus and future agreed policy can be applied sensitively. Please contribute to the discussion there. WLD 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the points stated by Arvind and Samuel Wantman. -- Samraj 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's about time we rethink the WP:NOT policy. I'll see you on that policy's talk page. --List Expert 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - To uphold Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.
    Note that Mukadderat has made a wholesale move to delete all of the following slang lists:

Does anyone besides me see an anti-ethnic, anti-minority, and anti-profanity bias here? Mukadderat seems to be very selective in his AfD nominations, which wreaks of censorship, which is a clear Wikipedia policy violation. --List Expert 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is entirely reasonable to nominate articles which violate WP:NOT. A list of Madras Tamil slang words does not belong in an English language encyclopedia, and is not verifiable. -Will Beback 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? It would sure save a lot of wasted time and effort on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per copyvio issues and other CSD violations addressed below. — Deckiller 05:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan McCann[edit]

This article appears to be written in a very glorious style, but has no incoming links. It seems like someone's vanity project or attempt at self-publicising or self glorification. Ohconfucius 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re above comments, I've just tagged it for speedy deletion Ohconfucius 02:42, 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 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jizzy p[edit]

This singer has just one hit on google, namely the Wikipedia entry. I think he is non notable. Cantalamessa 11:50, 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 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Worldwide[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Proposed deletion contested by IP user without comment. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is also an AfD for UPFRONT TV, their partner company. The creator also removed the prod on that article. Lurker your words/my deeds 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comments from User:Sixorgansofadmittance below are carbon copies of the comments left on my user talk page after I had {{PROD}}ed the article. Somehow my responses were omitted, so I've added them. (Probably no need to, but if we're going to copy, lets copy everything relevant). --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CELEBRITIES WORLDWIDE DELETION PROTEST

    Dear Sir

    Celebrities Worldwide is in fact an industry recognised standard, held in as much regard as a reference point as organisations such as the Press Association and the Internet Movie database. Their clients include major news organisations such as the BBC and ITN. Their website is www.celebritiesworldwide.com - I am talking from experience, as i once worked/am working in the entertainment industry. Please let me know if you still feel they are not genuine - I feel they are an invaluable source to professional industry people, not third rate hacks, who they most certainly wouldn't do business with

    Thank you

    SC (User:Sixorgansofadmittance)

    • The article is written in such a way as to present itself as nothing more than an advertisement for the contact service. See WP:SPAM for more information. If you can rewrite the article so that it does not come across as a promotional piece, and provide some verifiable sources that establish notability and importance, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. You are also welcome to remove the {{PROD}} tag if you feel that I have acted hastily. However, if the tag is removed with the article in its current state, it will likely be brought to Articles for Deletion discussion, where other editors will likely hold the same position as I do. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETION PROTEST

    Dear Sir

    Thank you for your concise, swift reply – much appreciated. First of all, let me say I fully appreciate your concerns, however, I believe you have misunderstood what Celebrities Worldwide and its sister company UPFRONT TV actually does. I've just discovered how useful these services are and it would be a real shame to deny Wikipedia visitors the chance to hear about them.

    Celebrities Worldwide offers official contact information for celebrities. It's an amazing resource for anyone in the media or entertainment industry to make contact within seconds with the most direct point of contact for over 20,000 celebrities worldwide.

    It's sister company UPFRONT TV is the celebrity booking service and the vast range of celebrities booked by UPFRONT is, I notice, detailed on www.celebritiesworldwide.com.

    Both companies have had a key role in creating some of the most high profile events which have been extensively covered by the media and consequently have had a significant impact on popular culture, trend and style over many years. This has been and continues to be a major source of entertainment and fascination to the general public as a whole.

    Finally, I notice you have listings for “Nike”, “MacDonald’s” and “Wal-Mart” on Wikipedia whose content does not seem to differ greatly from the information I have provided on the above 2 services.

    I trust you will reconsider.

    Kind regards

    SC (User:Sixorgansofadmittance)

    • As I detailed in my previous response, the primary issue that I have with the article is its promotional tone. The point I was making regarding the use of the names of Tom Cruise and David Beckham is that I believe that the names were used in order to associate their names with the company, when in fact there is no evidence provided that either of them are actually associated with the company. The article should be written in with a neutral point of view in order to avoid sounding like an advertisement. The comparison of this article to articles about Nike, McDonald's, and Wal-Mart doesn't really help much. The articles are definitely not written in a promotional fashion. In fact, the Wal-Mart and Nike articles contain quite a bit of information which is negative. These are giant companies that are clearly notable. It would be very difficult to argue that the articles on these companies should be deleted due to the fact that articles such as Celebrities Worldwide have been proposed for deletion. Once again, you are perfectly welcome to remove the {{PROD}} tag if you feel that I am wrong on this issue (I am just another editor like yourself, not an admin), but I don't believe that the article would survive in its current state if it were to go to Articles for deletion. You might want to take a look at some of the guidelines and policies I have mentioned (highlighted) to get a better feel for what should be included compared to what should not be included. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way to persuade editors is not to argue that Wikipedia visitors should not be denied the opportunity to read an advertisement, which will if anything make editors only more firmly convinced that this article should be deleted, but to demonstrate that this company satisfies the criteria laid out in WP:CORP. Uncle G 13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per pleas of advertiser to let his ad stay on Wikipedia ;) Dark Shikari 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:SPAM WilyD 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. So, uh, what was that website URL again? Can you repeat it just one more time? wikipediatrix 13:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam - Whpq 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPAM. I'm always amused when a self-employed web developer claims that he should be listed because Microsoft is, or some marginal company claims to be equal to WalMart. We don't accept ads for them, either. We have articles, from a neutral point of view, if they're notable companies. Fan-1967 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, fair enough everyone - but what should i delete? I mean, over the years I've had excellent experiences with these guys, they're a very useful resource and they've been around for 60 years i beleive - information i beleive is int he poublic interest. Surely a brief synopsis of what the company is is ok? what about if i deleted those lists? Thanks for your help everyone!

    And by the way, I'm not a "self employed web developer" - I work for a british TV company as a cameraman!I did business with these guys some years ago - apologies if it appears to be spam, there's no need to take it so personally!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixorgansofadmittance (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 14:12:08

    • Again: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Simply rewriting the article will get you nowhere. Please cite sources. Uncle G 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article slashed down to size - better? More "encyclopaedic"? All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.32.146 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 14:25:17
  • I'm currently trying to get hold of some sources - Googling to see where they've been referenced in big magazines/newspapers etc, which they have been - know this for a fact because I used their services after reading a review of them in a trade paper - Thanks Uncle G Sixorgansofadmittance 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the article in the trade paper is a source, too. Please provide a full citation for it. Uncle G 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reference from a very highly regarded newspaper is up - more to come soon I hope! Sixorgansofadmittance 15:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the guidelines at WP:CORP. "multiple non-trivial published works" does not mean an article where the company is mentioned once in paragraph ten. Fan-1967 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 of 7 paragraphs are about Celebrities Worldwide, commending it as a credit to the industry - how does that not count? have read the WP:CORP and thought it copmplied with the rules... thanks Fan-1967 for your help! All the best Sixorgansofadmittance 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the primary focus of the article is not the company at hand, editors employ their judgements, and this is what this AFD discussion will be more about, now that we have sources to take into account. Don't let this put you off looking for other, better, sources. Uncle G 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a spamvert for a non-notable company. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy non-notable vanispamcruftisement, Batman! -- Kicking222 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, references are up, ladies and gents - most of the articles are regrettably not available online - can scan some copies of what articles I have (don't have copies of all of them - this is just clippings they sent me when i used them a couple of years back although the Media Week column is what originally drew me to them) Sixorgansofadmittance 11:58, 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 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPFRONT TV[edit]

Spamvertisement. Tone of article and content clearly advertisement. Dated prod removed without any improvement to the article Lurker your words/my deeds 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPFRONT DELETION PROTEST

    Dear Sir

    Celebrities Worldwide is in fact an industry recognised standard, held in as much regard as a reference point as organisations such as the Press Association and the Internet Movie database. Their clients include major news organisations such as the BBC and ITN. Their website is www.celebritiesworldwide.com - I am talking from experience, as i once worked/am working in the entertainment industry. Please let me know if you still feel they are not genuine - I feel they are an invaluable source to professional industry people, not third rate hacks, who they most certainly wouldn't do business with

    Thank you

    SC (User:Sixorgansofadmittance)

  • DELETION PROTEST

    Dear Sir

    Thank you for your concise, swift reply – much appreciated. First of all, let me say I fully appreciate your concerns, however, I believe you have misunderstood what Celebrities Worldwide and its sister company UPFRONT TV actually does. I've just discovered how useful these services are and it would be a real shame to deny Wikipedia visitors the chance to hear about them.

    Celebrities Worldwide offers official contact information for celebrities. It's an amazing resource for anyone in the media or entertainment industry to make contact within seconds with the most direct point of contact for over 20,000 celebrities worldwide.

    It's sister company UPFRONT TV is the celebrity booking service and the vast range of celebrities booked by UPFRONT is, I notice, detailed on www.celebritiesworldwide.com.

    Both companies have had a key role in creating some of the most high profile events which have been extensively covered by the media and consequently have had a significant impact on popular culture, trend and style over many years. This has been and continues to be a major source of entertainment and fascination to the general public as a whole.

    Finally, I notice you have listings for “Nike”, “MacDonald’s” and “Wal-Mart” on Wikipedia whose content does not seem to differ greatly from the information I have provided on the above 2 services.

    I trust you will reconsider.

    Kind regards

    SC (User:Sixorgansofadmittance)

  • Again: The way to persuade editors is not to argue that Wikipedia visitors should not be denied the opportunity to read an advertisement, which will if anything make editors only more firmly convinced that this article should be deleted, but to demonstrate that this company satisfies the criteria laid out in WP:CORP. Uncle G 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM Dark Shikari 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice based on admitted violations of WP:SPAM. Also, if you guys could remind me never to do business with UPFRONT TV, that'd be great, thanks. WilyD 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being unencyclopedic spam. Diagonalfish 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam -- Whpq 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. You know, if you're going to pretend that you have nothing to do with UPFRONT TV and Celebrities Worldwide, maybe you shouldn't have created the articles yourself and uploaded the images yourself. You think? wikipediatrix 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam, and kindly ask author to make the slightest effort (so far absent) to undertand what Wikipedia is. Fan-1967 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. I appreciate the protestations against deletion. Perhaps the author(s) should read the guidelines on WP:CORP and WP:SPAM to appreciate why Nikes, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart do warrant articles. Those entities have corporate notability and their articles are not written as advertisements. Scorpiondollprincess 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not free advertising for your PR company. NawlinWiki 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, fair enough everyone - but what should i delete? I mean, over the years I've had excellent experiences with these guys, they're a very useful resource and they've been around for 60 years i beleive - information i beleive is int he poublic interest. Surely a brief synopsis of what the company is is ok? what about if i deleted those lists? Thanks for your help everyone! And by the way, I'm not a "self employed web developer" - I work for a british TV company as a cameraman! I did business with these guys sone years ago - apologies if it appears to be spam, there's no need to take it so personally!!

Working on kosher references nowSixorgansofadmittance 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I've cut the article down to the barest minimum - hope it's less brash and more to the point now - All the best

  • Delete It's still an ad. Especially with lines like 'UPFRONT specialises in all that is celebrity." Wikipedia is not free ad space, It is also not a search engine nor a web directory, so someone looking for information on celebrities would not come here without a specific celebrity in mind already. --DarkAudit 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an excellent reference/source up now, a link to a transcipt of an article that originally appeared in the Times, a major UK newspaper. Let me know if it still isn't Kosher. Kisses Sixorgansofadmittance 16:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still isn't kosher. It's a link to a Google Cache of an old message board post that is no longer online, and it says nothing about the source being from The Times. wikipediatrix 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as the Celebrities Worldwide AfD. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



More references added - let me know if the format I have used is incorrect - these papers/magazines have made it quite clear that UPFRONT is a bona fide mover and shaker in the world of celebrity booking. They are also considered by many as a competent rival to IMDB, being a database of celebrity names. Most of the articles are regrettably not available online - can scan some copies of what articles I have (don't have copies of all of them - this is just clippings they sent me when i used them a couple of years back) Sixorgansofadmittance 11:33, 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 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yugioh: the three egyptian god card effects[edit]

WP:NOT a games guide. Article is very esoteric and unnotable information relating to the Yugioh trading card game. Gekedo 12:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference for the egyptian god card effects from the tv show.If this has to be deleted, then I think that the article on the three sacred beasts should be deleated because it relates to card effects too!

Perhaps a merge, then, to 'Card effects in Yugioh'? --Gekedo 12:35, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article EvidentHost. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coath[edit]

A contested speedy, some assertion of notability has been given after the speedy tag was added. As far as I can tell, the information in this article is unverifiable [37] (Liberatore, 2006). 12:31, 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 speedy delete (done by Starblind). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadasdas[edit]

Page created by User:Sadasdas and used as redirect target from Irish bog Psalter and Doha round; has no other purpose. Speedy delete. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense being used only for vandalism, which really angries the blood. --DavidK93 12:53, 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 gone - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Japhetism[edit]

Neologism, never heard of until this article was created. I know I'm to assume good faith, but this appears, along with the article The Kingdom of God that the author is trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Wildthing61476 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedyable as a posting by a banned user under a sockpuppet name, in my opinion. See the deletion log for The Kingdom of God, all recreations from and before 12:10 28-Jul UTC were by The Office, who was then blocked for 48 hours for repeated vandalism. Then Holy Embassy pops up... In fact there is a thing called "Anti-Japhetism" by a sect of white supremacists. Google for it, but be prepared to wash your browser out with soap and water afterwards. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:47, 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. Several arguments for keeping failed to adress the article and instead focus on the errors of renomination, on the article serving as a honey trap for trivia, the fact that "notable" elements existed within the list, or a certain undefinable "extra" something. I've also disregarded recomendations to keep from *cough* very new editors, or that were borderline nonsensical.
brenneman {L} 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons[edit]

Characters who only appeared only once in a TV series (in other words, 99 percent of all characters on all TV shows) are inherently non-notable. Massive fancruft like this unsourced list of every non-notable one-time Simpsons character opens the doors to all kinds of obsessively fannish lists. Similar lists could be made for any TV program - can you imagine a List of one-time characters from Gunsmoke? wikipediatrix 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) wikipediatrix 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per nom. I'm sure this list is notable in the eyes of many strong fans of the show. But ultimately, this is not notable to causal fans (or those unfamiliar with the program). Scorpiondollprincess 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Its hard to say. The Simpsons is a long-running, highly notable series, which is why it has so many one-time minor characters. There are lists of these for many other series also, but they're drastically shorter due to the series' shorter length. Still, it seems somewhat crufty, so I'll stay neutral. Dark Shikari 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where's Gerald Ford, Ricky Gervais etc - Simpsons gets so many celebrity guest appearances and none of them are documented in what is already a very lengthy list. MLA 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one time characters are not notable in any show, regardless of how popular the show may be. If we're not keeping reality show contestants, or recurring game-show contestants, both of whom would have had more screen time than a one time character in a 22 minute show, then this really should not be kept. I don't care how many Simpsons cruftateers there are. Proto::type 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list it a textbook example of an article that conforms to WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any character notable enough for a mention can be mentioned in the article for the episode in which they appeared without loss of information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Carlossuarez46 and Night Gyr. Lazybum 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and others above. Simpsonscruft Bwithh 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excessive fancruft. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strewth -- GWO
  • Keep, no point punishing users who don't know if characters are recurring or not. Kappa 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Despite being a huge Simpsons fan, I don't like this article- in fact, I voted delete on it the first time, when it was nominated for AfD two months ago and was kept by a wide margin. It's really unfair to renominate articles after such a short period of time, especially when there was a strong consensus the last time. -- Kicking222 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One-time characters is a red flag. However, for me this list is saved by the impressive parade of famous people who voice the characters. Also a good way to contain the trivia (as opposed to individual articles...) Weregerbil 20:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I agree with the above, it's just containing unencyclopaedic minutiae about a television show. This belongs on a Simpsons fan site, not Wikipedia. GassyGuy 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Weregerbil, and per last AfD, and per Kicking222's views on the validity of this AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last AfD, and a useful article. The Simpsons is one of the most notable TV shows, so it deserves a little "extra" more than others. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sets a precedent that might result in similar articles being credited for Star Trek, Gunsmoke, Doctor Who or even My Mother the Car. You can't just pick-and-choose what shows deserve a little "extra". 23skidoo 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per before. They should have individual articles, but this is a decent compromise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Half of Wikipedia is unencyclopaedic minutiae. If that were a reason to delete that would set a very bad precedent. Orangehead 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. i would add, however that Mary Bailey is not a one time character - she also appeared in the episode where Homer gets put in that designer prison Marge has built as a concert hall. Magic Pickle 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Simpsons is a long running series and by that very nature will generate a large number of one-time characters. This article is a useful way to keep this information together. I am sure that Lucius Sweet cannot be considered a one-time character. He has been featured in many episodes. --Tomvox 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are two semi-notable people there, one of which already has his own article. This is not encyclopedic. violet/riga (t) 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Entirely not notable, and characters can have their information in the articles on the specific episodes in which they appeared - in example, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Marge has more information on Otto's near-wife than this article, making her inclusion here redundant. Same applies for all characters, with the possible exceptions of Birch Barlow, who already has an article, and Terwilliger. --Switch 11:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are notable characters here.- JustPhil 15:12, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richland, Township, Allen County, Ohio

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Suite[edit]

DynaByte Financial Suite gets about 50 unique Googles, nothign on GNews, no evidence of innovation, significance, market share etc. per WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was prodding it as you added the afd nomination. I think that Wikipedia is having issues with edit conflicts today. But, this fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP hence my vote. Dipics 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 17:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loltex[edit]

Neologism, and I'd say a vain attempt to advertise the forums too Wildthing61476 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Non-notable nelogism. In fact, I can't find any Google hits for it that refer to the nelogism at all Lurker your words/my deeds 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You could make lots of words by using lol in ways. --Sbluen 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a word that's actually used very frequently by the "Internet-savvy" on college campuses. It's relatively unknown by computing novices, so that would explain why there are so few hits on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.202.235 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete non-notable, anyone can edit urban dictionary. "Unknown by computing novices", therefore not-notable enough for a full article. -Royalguard11Talk 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it is not well known by computing novices (but widely used by those who are well versed in the Internet and computing) is all the more reason to keep it, so that the novices can go somewhere to look it up. Additionally, I personally can attest to the lie of the previous poster regarding Urban Dictionary. It is very difficult to get things by the editors there. It has taken me months with new words before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.202.235 (talk • contribs)
  • The above user has voted twice in this AfD, and has only edited 2 articles, one being the article listed for deletion. Wildthing61476 13:24, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group facilitation and dialogue[edit]

Short article with list of jaron procedures that are meaningless unless you buy the books from website link at bottom. WP:SPAM. Mattisse 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, and with only one source (and a questionable one at that) for WP:V as well. This reads as a series of business/marketing buzzwords that remain unexplained in the article (but presumably are better explained if you buy the book from the one "source" listed). Agree with nom. This is probably WP:SPAM. Scorpiondollprincess 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The subject is better covered by Facilitation (business). —Document 21:45, 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 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Ninjutsu Handseals[edit]

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Looks copy & pasted - possible copyvio? Ruaraidh-dobson 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Utterly non-encyclopedic material. Scorpiondollprincess 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No context and near-patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 15:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., also Naruto ninjutsu hand seals created by the same user. --Pentasyllabic 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Strong delete as OR/nonsense. Ever wanted to write a Wikipedia article? This isn't how. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's actually not patent nonsense, Naruto is a manga and anime and does involve handseals (although they are generally only for flavor.) That said, I stand by my original vote. --Pentasyllabic 03:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything above. On top of that, it's entirely original and unconfirmed research. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 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 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrris ltd[edit]

No evidence that it meets WP:CORP. Deli nk 14:45, 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. Nandesuka 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of virgins[edit]

List of virgins was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-18. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virgins/2005-11-18.

This article is currently undergoing a POV dispute and I don't see any prospect of the issue ever being one which doesn't contain POV. The subject matter is not one for which there is likely to be much historical evidence, so, although there have been efforts to improve the article, I think the nature of the subject means a list of proven beyond all reasonable doubt virgins will be virtually impossible to create. As I see it, the article will always have POV entriesLurker your words/my deeds 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect to the contributors of the list, this sort of thing is unmaintainable and of dubious value. If we need to note people who are significant for having been virgins, do it via categories, where those who know the most about the subject can maintain the inclusion/exclusion. Delete. -- nae'blis 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's unmaintainable, it's divisive, it's never going to be complete, it's potentially libellous, it's arbitrary, and it's indiscriminate. Proto::type 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is hopeless. It is completely unmaintainable. Take for example the fictional characters section, I removed it when it had The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Seymour Skinner, now it has resurfaced with a character from a Shakespeare play, one from a Stephen Sondheim musical and a (probaly) fictional Roman person. Most of the other sections consist of equally random entries. Then there are the arguments about the inclusion criteria, and so on and on. Stefán Ingi 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up If this article was limited to historical figures only I can see where it would be an interesting and informative article. There will always be disputes but they can be handled in an NPOV fashion. Having living people on it is a bit intrusive though (Does Hillary Duff deserve to be listed this week?). Dipics 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. This list is unverifiable and ultimately not maintainable as pointed out above. WP:NPOV disputes have already cropped up. I fail to see how inclusion on this list could ever have verifiable sources to establish one's "virginity" credentials. Non-encyclopedic, borderline WP:NPOV, and ultimately unverifiable. Scorpiondollprincess 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Dark Shikari 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other "delete" comments. Agent 86 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to verifiability concerns. Even if some of these people have said so in interviews or whatever, we can never really know. In addition, seems like a problematic vandalism target, as people add their random friends or whoever. Looking at the history, it seems that has already happened a few times, in fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the same verifiability concerns have been successfully overcome on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, List of Swedish Americans, etc. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria for the list, for "historical and legendary" virgins, is quite valid, and can be verified, especially for deities and those who have claimed to be virgins til their deathbed. This list should NOT have any living people however per WP:LIVING. The name of the article should be moved to better reflect the criterial already set. hateless 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but define and enforce limits. I basically agree with Uncle G's comment just above Hateless's vote, but don't see why these would have to be separate lists rather than separate sections within one list. It might benefit from a move to something like "List of people notable for remaining virgins", but either way it needs a very clearly worded explanation at the top of what is and is not to be included, and editors willing to strictly enforce it. The talk page can be used to discuss any controversial ones before they're re-added. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would absolutely support a Category:Fictional virgins, Category:Mythological virgins (though I can see some arguing over where to put Jesus Christ in that one!), and Category:People who were virgins until death under Category:Virgins, but I think the list is a bad idea for reasons stated earlier. I'll help transfer these to categories, though, if these do get deleted. -- nae'blis 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In general, I agree that categories are better than lists. The specific categories might work (and for controversial ones like Jesus and Mary, there could be a special category for religious figures). My one concern here, however, would be the over-arching Category:Virgin. It would be harder to keep a close eye on, however. It would be easy for people to not see the standards of inclusion and start listing, for example, the articles for every child actor or otherwise famous child they can think of. With a list, people can't just add a person to it without going to the list itself and seeing any criteria for inclusion listed at the top. --Icarus (Hi!)
        • Yes, but anyone adding a category has to do it where people who have the most knowledge about that person are likely to be concentrated: their article! You're right, though, that Category:Religious virgins would be better than mythological, as it covers both cases. Good catch. Caetgory:Virgin should probably include folks who were notable for being virgin at some point (Elizabeth, Donna Edmondson, etc), and most spurious additions will be removed in their article. I think it's an inherently more maintainable system, and any truly spectacular cases can be mentioned in virginity (as they already are, in fact). -- nae'blis 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a list of people real or mythical, reputed for being virgins, or widely known for being virgins would be good. They don't actually have to be virgins until death. For instance, Queen Elizabeth I, is called the Virgin Queen but she was not a "virgin". And the Virgin Mary is only known to be a Virgin through the birth of Jesus. After the birth, there is no attestation she remained virginal until death. Mythology is replete with virgin births, so those virgin mothers should be on such a list. Several big-name scientists are famous for being virgins. (and some for debauchery as well). There's also the Virgin Playmate Donna Edmondson, who is famous for being a virgin when she posed for Playboy. 132.205.45.148 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's hopelessly POV and unverifiable. Without independent medical evidence, then it's claims of virginity (and, of course, there's the social pressure to claim virginity). In addition, it isn't clear what definition of virginity is used. And, looking at the talk page, the inclusion of Mary mother of Jesus will amount to endorsing a Catholic POV, while leaving her out will amount to endorsing an anti-Catholic POV. Guettarda 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The name could be changed to "List of people believed to be virgins" or "List of people claimed to have been virgins" or something similar. As for Mary, the easiest solution would be to list her, but put a note right after her name stating that some denominations believe this, and some don't. That covers all bases without supporting any one in particular. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beware of weasel words. -- nae'blis 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the point of a list of people who are "probably" virgins? Again, looking at the page history, there's some discussion of Britney Spears. She originally claimed to be "waiting for marriage" (despite the Fred Durst allegations, etc.) and then eventually said she wasn't. So when do you remove someone - when they stop talking about it, when they stop proclaiming their virginity? Is it really any of our business? We shouldn't be a gossip rag. As for "List of people claimed to have been virgins" - wasn't everyone a virgin at some point in time? Guettarda 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know if this would actually work, I just thought it should be put out as a suggestion. I, for one, would probably support a proposal to not list contemporary figures like Britney Spears because their status can change so quickly. I'd support keeping it for historical (or at lease deceased) figures whose virginity was deemed notable enough to be included in some sort of reliable source, such as a biography. (And, as for everyone having been one, the list would be for people who died as virgins or were otherwise notable for having been virgins.)
          • Nae'blis is right to point out the risk of weasel words. In individual entries, it would therefore be important to cite sources as the bullet points at the beginning of WP:WEASEL encourage. For the proposed change in the name of the article, I think that this would be a case where it's not weasely, just honest to acknowledge that we can't really know who has or hasn't lost their virginity. Like I said, there may be no good way to fix the problems with this list, but I think it best to at least try. --Icarus (Hi!) 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why not just have this as a list of people famous for reputedly being virginal? Mythological instances are easy, since the claim is in the myth (This would include Mary, mother of Jesus - as this is Christian mythology). While Queen Elizabeth I, is attested to not be a virgin, but is famous for being the Virgin Queen. This would also cover Donna Edmondson as she's famous for being the Virgin Playmate, though she is now a mother and thusly no longer a virgin. The reputation for being virginal is a better and more verifiable fact than the actuality of it. Though I would not consider that any young person be placed on the list (ie. Britney Spears) as most young people are virgins for a large portion of their youth. Black Dhalia is a famous virgin because she was medically incapable of having sex... so there is the question about what to do with those medically incapable of sex... (and the definition of sex to use for virgin). 132.205.93.88 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because "famous" is a tricky criterion; because "reputedly" lowers the bar to anyone, living or dead, who has ever had a rumour published about them that xe is a virgin; and because this doesn't address the problem of living people. The three lists that I gave, in contrast, do not rely upon fame and rumour; and exclude living people. A list of virgins in religious mythology is verifiable by citing analyses of the mythology; and such virgins are not living people. A list of virgins in works of fiction is verifiable by citing analyses of the literature; and by definition such virgins are not living people. A list of historical figures who were virgins at the times of their deaths is verifiable by citing historical analyses; and again by definition such virgins are not living people. In all three cases, if there's a reliable source that is cited, the person is on the list. In no case do we worry about Hillary Duff or Britney Spears, and in no case do we have to argue about who is "famous" and what "reputedly" means. If you want to list non-virgins such as Elizabeth I of England, then you are into the territory that should be covered by list of historical figures nicknamed "virgin", not by any sort of "list of virgins" at all. Uncle G 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep offbeat but valid topic per hateless. Sectioned list works fine. Could use a longer intro and more footnotes. --JJay 16:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless. Support a renaming of the article as well since "List of virgins" is slightly ambiguous. Silensor 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see it relevant to an encyclopedia. Difficult to verify does not mean do not start an article.
  • Delete per UncleG's excellent reasoning above. The title itself is inaccurate. Ziggurat 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine this being in any reference work of any kind. Also in one sense this is the third attempt at delete. However the first one in 2004 was withdrawn.--T. Anthony 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. We cannot, cannot, cannot have an article that speculates on the sex lives of living persons. And we can't really verify the dead ones. If we allow any "reputedly"-type language, the article becomes a dumping ground for useless celebrity gossip. wikipediatrix 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My goodness, hopeless to keep this up to date, accurate, and complete. Delete ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, it is unverifiable, gossip, unimportant, potentially libelous (saying a 50-year-old living person is a virgin is not complementary to many people, especially Western men) and original research (there is almost always conflict among sources about such things, so you have to chose who to believe). -- Kjkolb 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article will be too much effort, to keep the page in accordance with WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, than it will ever be worth, especially considering the questionable encyclopedic value of listing hisorical figures who were virgins.-- danntm T C 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by me as containing no content, just a repository of external links. Proto::type 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry tools suppliers[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository of links, Deli nk 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete this should not have been listed on AfD. I will add a speedy template. --Tim1988 talk 14:59, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dolomite Centre Ltd[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Deli nk 14:50, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British words not widely used in the United States[edit]

Wikipedia policy is explicit on this kind of thing. WP:NOT states Wikipedia should not contain articles that are "Lists of such definitions" or "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". This article inherently fails WP:NOT. It lacks reliable sources for the most part, too (unless British Fart Slang is a reliable source), but that's not necessarily the issue. Failing WP:NOT is. This information, if it does not already exist there, could be transwikied to Wiktionary. Proto::type 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Too subject to determine what qualifies as "widely used" and cite each example. A better (and well-sourced) page already exists at American and British English differences. We don't need a list of words that some people may (or may not) think have wide usage in certain geographic areas. Scorpiondollprincess 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Scorpiondollprincess. Agent 86 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this encyclopedia is written in mixed British-, Irish-, Austrialian-, Canadian- and American-English. That's a given and won't change. It is a useful guide to understand both articles and source material to have a list such as this. Most encyclopedias have some detailed preface explaining what is meant by certain terminology, but WP is not paper and no page precedes any other. Having a resource available (not so much as a usage guide but as a usefulness tool) is important, not that different from having lots of articles like United_States_customary_units, Metrified_English_unit, Imperial_unit, etc. whose chief contents are their equivalents tables so that SI users aren't stumped if they want to know the height in metric units of a horse measuring so-many hands high, how long a race measured in furlongs is, just how much is 20,000 leagues under the sea, the whole nine yards, etc. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST KEEP POSSIBLE. That article is part of a whole series on "American and British English differences," and its deletion would just screw up the whole project and send *years* of work right down the tube. JackLumber. 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiousity, what project is that? Agent 86 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr. Proto and the guys who voted delete most likely didn't even bother reading the article. There's a whole Category named American and British English differences, check it out if you have the time. Somebody mentioned American and British English differences. Well, that's only the main article. List of British words not widely used in the United States is a frigging spinoff of the main article—should this article be deleted, the main article would be incomplete. Lexical differences between AmE and BrE are extraordinarily complex; they are NOT dealt with in the main article, they couldn't be dealt with in one single article: indeed, they span three different spinoffs, which are complementary to each other; the page the guys want to get rid of is one of these. Additionally, these guys don't seem to know much about linguistics. OK, I allow that the article could use some cleanup (nothing on that page can be traced to that "fart slang," btw) but deleting it sure would be a gigantic, unprecedented mistake. The article IS well-sourced. And it ain't no list of definitions, why don't you *read* that cottonpicking article, it ain't no list of definitions any. "...Too subject to determine what qualifies as "widely used" and cite each example..." Come on, we have books on British and American English, we have papers, we have style guides, we have corpus data, we have dictionaries. Delete that frigging article, and I'll quit. You can't do this to me. Shame on you. "Proto," you weren't even around when this article got started. JackLumber. 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • JackLumber, I don't mind you having an opinion one way or another, but please keep WP:CIVIL. Your tone and language are unacceptable. I should also remind you to assume good faith. I can't speak for others, but I did read the article. As a result, and for the reasons given, my opinion is delete. I see no notice on the article page that it is part of any "project" (a wikiproject or otherwise), hence my question. A "to-do" list on the talk-page didn't strike me as a "project", other than maybe your own personal project. The article might be "old", but that's no hallmark of encyclopedic value in and of itself. Some matters raised here have not yet been addressed, such as the subjective nature of the article. For example, the nature of "widely used" has no clear meaning, being left entirely up to each person's perception. You refer on the talk page to words "deserving" to be in the article, but how is an editor to know how a word is "deserving" when the criteria are subjective? I stand by my opinion to delete. Agent 86 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe not a "project" in the wiki sense—I meant *the whole category*. We are just trying to provide a thorough, comprehensive, in-depth study of the differences between the two main dialects of the English language. As for that "clear meaning" thing, we have books on British and American English, we have papers, we have style guides, we have corpus data, we have dictionaries, we have papers about word frequencies in British and American corpora and databases, we know whether a word is widely used or not and we know what that means. Stand your ground, I don't care. You're gonna lose. I can assume good faith, I can't assume nescience. JackLumber. 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) And there's no need to SHOUT.[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up and enrich, especially if there are historical points relating to the differences. SB_Johnny | talk 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm trying to do, check out my contrib log—thanks. JackLumber. 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary which is exactly what this list is. Perhaps transwiki this to Wiktionary. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT is very clear in this regard, and while I wouldn't necessarily mind a page like this in WP, the rules are solid in this regard. hateless 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:NOT is not very clear in this regard, since it allows glossaries. Weak delete unless someone offers a good reason why this list can be classified as a glossary. hateless 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, one more change, Transwiki per Bwithh. hateless 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a long-standing and widely edited article. It has been standing alone since it was spun off of American and British English differences in May of 2003. Rmhermen 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary, which is a perfectly fine and more appropriate place for this useful list - this move should not be regarded as some kind of demotion or relegation. And add one of those wikitionary link notices to American and British English differences. More people should be encouraged to use Wikitionary, and understand how it is functionally different from Wikipedia, yet at the same time the two can productively link to each other Bwithh 22:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a long-term project, yes. But not now. And btw, it's called Wiktionary, not Wikitionary ;-) JackLumber.

23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not now? Why only in the future? There's nothing wrong with Wiktionary as it is Bwithh 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's too complicated for wiktionary, though might have merit as a wikibook text-stub.
There is a budding project (just a few days old) aimed at regional dialects (WP:REDS), and the article could be adopted from there, or made into a working subpage of the project. SB_Johnny | talk 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46 and Rmhermen. --Bduke 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it looks absolutely fine, Highway Return to Oz... 11:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating list. Clearly loads of work went into it. But, like most lists, it can never be complete, and deciding what goes in and what does not (too regional, archaic or uncommon for example) almost certainly requires original research. Most damningly, it's a list of definitions. We don't do that here Delete with a transwiki to Wictionary if they'll have it. Further, an admonshment to JackLumber to please remain civil and not take things personally. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has all kinds of ridiculous lists. This is one that is actually useful and well-written. --musicpvm 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is an important tool for editing articles that might contain a mix of AmE and BrE. Not to mention it is useful for linguists like myself. - le petit vagabond 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - frankly, I'm at a loss to understand why somebody would want to delete this article. Some of the most useful parts of encyclopædiæ are the tables or lists usually incorporated or added as appendices. I would argue that Wiktionary is not an appropriate place for information like this, as it does not sit easily in the format of one word + meaning(s) per entry/article. This could even be an opportunity to open up the debate of what Wikipedia is not. WLD 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a useful and comprehensive resource. Wikipedia itself specifies when to use BrE or AmE; what's wrong with a definition of terms?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary states 'no lists of definitions'. It's fairly straightforward. Proto::type 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think the list classifies as a dictionary, but rather a list of information on words and differences between the two english systems. A dictionary merely gives opinions, while the article adds more, giving the reader an idea of what are the vocabulary differences between BrE and AmE are. -le petit vagabond 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If WP:NOT actually bars things such as this, then it is time to update WP:NOT. Although the list could certainly use better references and citations. older ≠ wiser 21:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedState[edit]

An un-notable blog with NO assertion of notability - the only possible claim is that one member (Ben Domenech) wrote for one week on the Washington Post before getting fired (and that info is duplicated on his article, anyway). Fails WP:WEB, and probably WP:VAIN. It was tagged for prod, but untagged by a user with a grand total of 14 edits. Delete. Proto::type 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'm also uncomfortable with the tone this article takes. Words like "excoriated," "castigation," and "inflammatory" don't often appear in Neutral Point of View encyclopedia articles. I'm inclined to agree: this fails WP:WEB and possibly WP:VAIN as well. Scorpiondollprincess 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the conservative counterpart to Daily Kos (though, arguably, not nearly as popular). It is notable per WP:WEB#1 because it gets cited all the time in the press, usually because notable people comment there. See, for instance (a random selection):
    • Editorial (2006-04-07). "Blogged Down in a Sea of Anger". Washington Post.
    • Mike Madden (2006-02-01). "Bloggers analyze Bush speech quickly, with partisan fervor". Seattle Times.
    • Edward Morrisey (2005-10-09). "How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right". Washington Post.
    • Editorial (2005-10-30). "Best of the blogs". Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
    • Staff Writer (2005-05-18). "Political Parties Use Technology Differently". Washington Internet Daily. (RedState is a subject of this story.)
    (A ProQuest search gives 32 hits on "RedState". A LexisNexis search over the previous two years gives 40 hits.) Founder Ben Domenech is a notable (and controversial) figure, and all articles about him generally namedrop RedState. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kaustuv. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's somewhat notable. I rm'd the irrelevant links. SB_Johnny | talk 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a very well known blog that has received coverage outside the blogosphere. Vickser 20:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although ranked lower than Daily Kos it is the most serious of the top three right-wing political blogs. "Blogosphere Ecosystem" (political blogs) ranking of 85[40], Technorati ranking of 502.[41]. As the Domenech deal shows it has a Beltway audience. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole jihad against Wiki articles on weblogs and online fora-which I believe began with Ben Burch's spurious recommendations of Protest Warrior and Conservative Underground for deletion-strikes me as a bit absurd.
First of all, traffic rankings are not dispositive-and many times, not even very accurate-as far as determining a website's potential audience, and concomitant influence, is concerned.
Secondly, RedState does have a Beltway audience, but as its companion site, Confirm Them!, demonstrated during the debate over the confirmation of John Roberts, the abortive Harriet Miers nomination, and subsequent nomination and confirmation of Justice Alito, it also exercises an outsized impact in terms of shaping public opinion on Capitol Hill, the White House, and within the Washington D.C. press corps. At least, with respect to nominations for the federal judiciary.
Finally, this entire debate illustrates the utter subjectivity of what constitutes a "notable" weblog.
The DailyKos is the most popular political weblog in existence at this time-and has garnered an enormous amount of media attention for its owner's success in drawing a Web audience-however it has been a miserable failure in achieving its purported objective, i.e. electing stridently left wing Democrats to office, both in general elections and in primaries.
Does that mean we should ignore its influence among Dem. Party powerbrokers, or the millions of individuals who have perused that site, or thousands who view and contribute to it on a daily basis?
Conversely, does the dismal traffic ranking of Red State negate the incredible influence it had on the debate surrounding the composition of our federal judiciary?

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete" - #85 in technorati for political blogs is nothing to write home about.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rje 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena[edit]

The concept of the article is fundamentally flawed: anything on the internet is an "internet phenomena", including this very AfD discussion. The article can never be anything but one big massive WP:OR violation. wikipediatrix 15:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is one of the most useful pages about internet memes out there. It can be a list of old and new ones, there is no need to delete something so useful, where else can you find a list like this? There needs to be some sort of list like this; there are allready wikipedia entries for every entry, there has to be some sort of master list so that people can navigate through them.

But this article is hella dope!!! Those Kimbo Slice videos changed my life. Ha ha, gosh. Hopefully 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. An internet phenomenon has an accepted definition, and a large number of those listed on the page have been covered by secondary news sources (Leeroy Jenkins, anyone?). This is a perfectly valid list, in fact, its a perfect example of what is a useful Wikipedia list. More to the point, if your deletion nomination's logic is considered valid, the same justification could be used to delete every single internet phenomenon on the list. Dark Shikari 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "accepted definition" you speak of? And who accepted it? Most of the entries on this page speak of external events, news of which spreads on the internet - but how is that a valid internet phenomena? The article tells us that boxer Sid Eudy got knocked from the ring and that "the footage exploded across the internet". So what? The article tells us that Stephen Colbert criticized Bush at a dinner and that people on the internet talked about it for "several days afterward". So what? Other entries, like William Hung's or Robert Tilton's, don't even establish what, if anything, the entry has to do with the internet. And yes, I do think many of these entries' own articles should be deleted, like Anton Maiden, for one. wikipediatrix 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "accepted definition" is in Wikipedia's own notability policy: once a phenomenon is covered by a secondary news source, it becomes verifiable and thus notable. Thus deleting the whole list is silly: it would be much more effective to do individual AfD nominations for the articles linked from the list that aren't verifiable or notable, and then to remove them. Removing the list removes a valid source of information without dealing with the problem of non-notable "phenomena" being on Wikipedia in the form of articles. Dark Shikari 15:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You still aren't hearing m e: what is the definition of an "internet phenomenon"? Who defined it? Show me sources. wikipediatrix 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:WEB. An internet phenomenon is any unusual meme that is propagated around the internet in great volume. It belongs on Wikipedia if it fits the WP:WEB guidelines as linked before. Dark Shikari 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you specify what part of WP:WEB illustrates your point. I see nothing on there that is relevant to this article's POV/OR problem. And while you're at it, define "unusual" and "in great volume" for me. These are POV terms. wikipediatrix 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A skyscraper is an "unusually tall building". Does that mean that we shouldn't have an article about skyscrapers? Anyways, please continue your comments in the below section: having two arguments at once is ridiculous. Dark Shikari 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't answer my questions. wikipediatrix 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the wrong question. Of course there should be an article on skyscrapers. The question should have been: should be a list that includes all skyscrapers. The answer is obviously no, as it is debatable if a building is a skyscraper or not. (Of course, in the case of skyscrapers the situation is somewhat different, as you can do the following: List of tallest buildings in the world.) -- Koffieyahoo 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List criteria is far too broad, far too widely open to WP:OR, and ultimately unverifiable. This list has the potential to rapidly explode to an unusable, unweildy, monstrous size. Non-encyclopedic and not useful. If something is a legitimate internet phenomenon, it can have its own (sourced) page. Scorpiondollprincess 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not narrow the criteria and delete the internet phenomena (the articles themselves) that aren't notable or verifiable? Deleting the whole list is massive, stupid overkill. Its like blowing up the moon because you don't like the look of a few of the craters. Dark Shikari 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's like deleting a POV list because it's POV. The internet is a medium just like any other, so where's List of TV phenomena and List of radio phenomena? Someone or something getting their 15 minutes of pseudo-fame on the internet doesn't establish notability. What constitutes a true "internet phenomenon" is inherently a matter of personal opinion and can never be mutually agreed on. It's POV and OR on a grand scale. wikipediatrix 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable = covered by secondary sources per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Period. It isn't a matter of debate, nor is it a matter of POV. If an article linked from the list isn't notable by that definition, AfD it. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, this is not the place to debate it! Dark Shikari 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article should go to AfD or not has nothing to do with whether it should be mentioned on this list. wikipediatrix 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the whole list can only be justified if everything on it is non-notable. If there are even just a few things on it which are notable, the list shouldn't be deleted, instead, everything except those notable articles should be deleted. Thus, by claiming the list should be deleted, you imply that not a single article on the list is notable, and thus that everything on the list should be deleted. Since that is what you imply, you should list them all for AfD individually instead of the whole list. Dark Shikari 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep talking about articles? This isn't a list of articles, it's a list of incidents and persons. Their own separate articles have nothing to do with this list's fundamental POV/OR problem. wikipediatrix 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're making absolutely zero sense whatsoever. It is a list of articles. The information next to the article name is a summary of the linked article. The linked article describes an internet phenomenon. If the internet phenomenon is non-notable, so is the linked article, and thus the linked article should be deleted. Do you get it yet? Dark Shikari 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: the article tells us that Stephen Colbert criticized Bush at a dinner and that people on the internet talked about it for "several days afterward". This incident is supposed to be the internet phenomena, not Stephen Colbert in general. And you're telling me that if this incident involving Colbert is non-notable, then so is his linked article?? wikipediatrix 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an exception. Most of the articles on that page are of the form "Hamsterdance: Blah blah blah summary of hamsterdance article" or also "Person who got most of his fame from the internet phenomena: blah blah blah summary." If such a claim about Stephen Colbert is uncited, you can delete it: you don't need an AfD to delete a single line on the page of an article, or even 50 lines on the page of an article. The other claims rely directly on the notability of the article they link to. To be more precise, if every single listing on the page was as you described (like Stephen Colbert) and had no citation, I would support deletion of the list because there would be no verifiable content on the list. Dark Shikari 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only bring it up because you keep talking about articles. The individual articles are not on trial here, this list is. wikipediatrix 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the list is perfectly fine for blatantly obvious reasons. If you think something isn't verifiable and doesn't belong on the list, delete it! Be bold! Dark Shikari 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, for the information of the nominator, an internet phenomenon is also known as a "fad." Beanie babies, for example, were a notable fad. Notable web fads (also known as internet phenomena) have articles about them, such as this one by CNET: http://www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6268155-1.html Dark Shikari 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then rename the article List of internet fads. By definition, "fad" is only one of many types of "phenomena". wikipediatrix 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you google both terms in quotes, you will find "internet phenoma/phenomenon" is more widely used, and thus under Wikipedia guidelines should be the title. Dark Shikari 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case (and I'm not sure I agree that it is), then the term needs to be defined for the article in a manner that's free of POV and OR, and I don't think that's possible. Earlier in this thread, you couldn't define it without using POV/OR terms like "unusual" and "great". wikipediatrix 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you delete Skyscraper under that logic, because a skyscraper cannot be defined without POV terms either, such as "very tall" (what does that mean?) or "unusually high". Or what about a mansion versus a house? A mansion can only be described as "unusually large" or "very large." Do you suggest we delete the article on mansions also? Dark Shikari 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. You just linked to Skyscraper yourself. Show me where on the page it says "unusually". wikipediatrix 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to totally miss the point. First words on the page are "A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building." Please read the WHOLE post before replying next time... --Bky1701 09:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dark Shikari. KASchmidt 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an event has to be notabile to make this list. Perhaps in the future it can be broken into sublists. Harvestdancer 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Internet phenomena" and remove the list, except for a few examples. --Sbluen 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. I don't see the POV claim here. The language in the article appears neutral with no glaring weasel words. Yes it is a large article but the wide range of topics invites a large number of editors to view it and help maintain it. I agree with Dark Shikari that the number one criteria here should be verification from a secondary source and you already see the editors on the Talk Page moving towards this consensus. That gives me great confidence that this article can be maintained. The list is inherently notable in the subject matter with anyone who has been on the internet for even a small amount of time being able to scan through and go "OMG! I remember that!" on numerous occassions. The very fact that Wikipedia is web based strongly gears this article towards our most common audience. Agne 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the nominator has conceded that s/he'd be OK with a mere name change to List of internet fads (see wikipediatrix's post at 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)); I'm agnostic about the renaming, but the article is a keeper (even per the nominator). Carlossuarez46 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you're making a false assumption about what I said. If the article was indeed renamed List of internet fads, almost everything in the current article would have to be jettisoned to fit the stricter definition of "fad". Which, IMHO, is a good thing. But I have never said or even implied that a mere name change would make it all OK. wikipediatrix 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Dark Shikari completely. Avengerx 19:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would this whole thing not be better served as a category? Anything that is acceptable as an article passes the test and can be included by category. Anything that isn't an article is too minor to be included. -- Whpq 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Best idea I've heard all day. wikipediatrix 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an 'Internet Memes' category, but it might be a good idea to change its definition to include what is described here as 'Internet Phenomenon'. However, a category list may be easier to maintain, but it would sacrifice detail on many subjects. (For example, this page is the only page which I know of that has any information on the elusive 'eon8'. Eon8's article was deleted and blocked some time ago, and therefore would not appear on any category that would be made, even though a useful source of encyclopedic information on it would be welcome. MrD 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Keep in that the article should exist; weak in that 4/5 of the content should be deleted. --Hamiltonian 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It provides infamous stuff like Eon8 and many others making the content valuable and therefore 4/5 of the content should stay. 24.188.203.181 00:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ZeWrestler.--RicardoC 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dark Shikari. As it stands, there have been more than a few articles deleted with comments that they should be reduced to entries on this page instead. Without this page, we'll see AfD explode as people create entries for things that aren't notable enough for an article but notable enough for this page. (Brian Peppers, for example.) Full disclosure: Yes, I'm referenced in an entry on the page; I'd support keeping it even if I wasn't. Jay Maynard 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stron Keep per Dark Shikari. Here's to hoping that the keeps wont be ignored here because an unverified claim of "they were told to come here" like nearly all vfds I've seen relating to internet culture Johhny-turbo 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Hamiltonian. —xyzzyn 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Wikipediatrix nominated it for deletion, which seems to be a good indicator that it should be kept. Daniel Case 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure to provide a relevant reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Wikipediatrix has been blocked twice in the last several days for willful disregard of civility and consensus. As this discussion demonstrates, she has often first sided with the "Cleanup" people (which I would support) and then suddenly taken it here without bothering to build a consensus for such action on the article's talk page. She is also not above insulting people in discussions (I am beginning to suspect some of her deletions are motivated by a desire to remove evidence of her tart keyboard in anticipation of the RFC she has to know is coming) and edit summaries, and has refused to respond to reasonable efforts to resolve disputes. Apparently it's her way or the highway.
This indicates bad faith to me and, due to the background of these nominations I would, were I to be the closing admin, immediately suspend the debate as a bad faith nomination (We have done this in the past, I think).
In summary, the article needs cleanup not deletion. Daniel Case 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per this article is hella dope and Kimbo Slice will break our necks if we delete him. Hopefully 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure to provide a relevant reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete per WP:OR . -- Commander 23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note (unrelated to my keep above) that the three preceding comments are probably by the same person (see history and [42]. —xyzzyn 11:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only that, but they (he?) have all been waging a private revert war in the article over one particular entry that they feel should be retained, and so have ulterior motives for voting "delete": "If you won't keep my entry, then you won't have an article at all!" Jay Maynard 13:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pcpp 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure to provide a reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good place for all that cruft that no one cares about but everyone insists creating - we can trim most terabyteful articles about minor fads to a couple of sentences and put them here. With proper criteria of inclusion, this will work just fine and everyone will be happy. If minor fads have to be covered, let it be done this way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Batmobile 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure to provide a reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the best resources for this sort of thing is Wikipedia, and somone want it gone? How about deleting the exploding animals page? Or all the unusual articles?--Planetary 16:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Replace by category, with those items which should not have an article, but are otherwise notable, listed in the category description. (I can think of only one or two.) In almost all cases, if an item should be listed here, it should have a Wikipedia article, and vice versa. AfD's are probably cleaner than edit wars in this article would be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Immediate Removal This article dows not belong in even the most liberal of encyclopedias.
Cabron | (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definite keep, renamed to List of internet fads, Redirect existing name to where it's at now. rootology 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should be noted that virtually every entry already has it's own article--which is why this is good, it's a simple but valuable synopsis page that will allow people looking such things up to find the related content easily and quickly. Serves a definite good purpose and deserves inclusion. rootology 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You could change it to "internet fad" and clean it up. These things have cultural relevance. I use this article when I don't know what something is that a lot of people online are talking about. --Bluejay Young 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Don't we already have a category for this? Pointless list, POV issues are present as there is no standard of what is an internet phenomenon, etc. GassyGuy 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further note - A lot of these entries are misleading if not outright wrong. The band O-Zone is not an Internet phenomenon. Colin Mochrie is not an Internet phenomenon. They may somehow be tied to Internet-related activities, but loose affiliation with some aspect of the Internet is hardly what makes an Internet phenomenon. This list is now useless on two fronts: 1) We have categories for Internet related things. 2) It has such broad, unclear, and POV inclusion criteria that it is all but useless. GassyGuy 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this article gets daily additions (mainly from anonymous IPs), and it is very difficult to keep track of what are legitimate entries and what are not. The band O-Zone is a questionable addition, yes. They were added because their song became popular due to the "Numa Numa" video. Does that make them a phenom? I don't know. Probably not. Can this entry be deleted, since this is already covered in the "Numa Numa" entry? Probably. And Colin Mochrie is an example of an Internet phenomenon. He is the "mascott" (for lack of a better term) for the animutations, appearing in almost every one. I didn't know about this either before reading about it on this article, but then, that's what this article is for. I do think we need to establish standards of what makes something/someone a true Internet phenomenon (it has been discussed, but nothing really set yet), so editors can immediately delete additions that don't meet the qualifications (I would LOVE this job, btw). Wavy G 04:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Animutations, whatever those may be, could very well be Internet phenomena. Colin Mochrie may be associated with Animutations. That does not make him an Internet phenomenon. In the same way, Vin Diesel Facts were an Internet phenomenon - Vin Diesel is not. GassyGuy 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Article could use a reconstruction/paring down from its current state. Like you said, "Vin Diesel facts" is a phenom, but not "Vin Diesel" himself. Same could be said for animutations and Colin Mochrie. A lot of it probably stems from the "which category here should this go under?" question, which I'm sure arises whenever someone makes an addition. Wavy G 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Internet phenomenon is an accepted term by scholars of the internet. Chabane Djeraba, Richard Kahn, Souiza de Silva have all used the term in published papers. The only WP:OR problem here is deciding what is and isn't a phenomenon since so few have been treated academically. If the article is deleted, a new one entitled Internet Phenomenon should be created that explains the concept and gives academically verifiable examples.Vesperal 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I personally use this to keep up on what is new on the internet. i usually only use places like Fark, SA, 4chan, etc., and i can't keep up with the times without this list. that, and it provides me with a quick look up for memes and the like..Mreddy1
    No reason to keep provided that is in line with any Wikipedia policy Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the article is a mess and vetting of inclusions is non-existent. Use categories. If the article passes muster, it gets included in the category, otherwise, the article does not exist, and the category remains free of crud. -- Whpq 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you recommend for those things that have had articles deleted with recommendations that they be listed in this one instead? Jay Maynard 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they weren't worthy of inclusion in their own article, and they failed to improve this article, perhaps they're not worth including in this particular resource. However, it's impossible to generalize - that would have to be assessed on a case by case basis if there's an article to which they might contribute something. Housing information for the sake of housing it does not necessarily improve the work if the information is not actually beneficial. GassyGuy 03:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete : Listcruft --Targetter 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The concept that "anything on the Internet" is automatically an Internet phenomenon is a specious claim. If the problem is with the word "phenomenon," then change the name of the article to Internet "fad" or Internet "memes," but don't delete. Article exists for a purpose. Also, article is not original research, as many of the entries have been cited by second party sources (not everything is cited yet, no, but you can't expect that to happen overnight). Needs a lot of work, but I think it can easily meet the criteria. Wavy G 04:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify just what purpose it's serving that wouldn't be better served by a category? And, no, you can't expect reliable sources for all of them immediately, but WP:V leads me to believe that you can expect them to be excluded from Wikipedia until those sources exist. GassyGuy 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Addressing the question of the articles purpose) a category is for articles. Not everything should have an article. It's that simple. Some items on the list are not important enough to have their own articles, but they can be "listed" here. If the entry has its own article, by all means, link to it. But not everything that is an "Internet phenomenon" deserves an article. I can't think of any examples except for something like List of minor Star Wars droids. Not all of the Star Wars "droids" need their own articles, but should probably be mentioned somewhere, so why not put them here? Wavy G 04:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much said all I have to say, but because you and many others have made this point, I will add - I am not of the mind that they "have to be mentioned somewhere" if somewhere means "somewhere on Wikipedia." Not everything needs to be mentioned. It's a pointless fight to attempt to delete the minor droid list, but minor droids sure seem more like Memory Alpha material than encyclopaedic stuff to me. Anyway, my point is, Wikipedia is a good resource, but it's not a one-stop shopping center. It can always include links to relevant offsite sources of information - it does not have to host every little thing. GassyGuy 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it right now and don't have time to read it all. Either wait a few days to delete or move it off article space so I can read the rest. It's really long. Anomo 06:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with large edit. Some of the content listed should definately be deleted. I wouldn't call 'AOL speak' or Leet speak a meme, for example. At one point the article was rather concise, but it recently expanded. --Zooba 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just don't see the point in keeping this article, seems to be more of a personal website/promotional site for various users. --User:America Online 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out that the article does not contain "personal/promotion websites" of any kind. There is a section of "Personal websites," but they are indeed genuine (and quite verifiable) Internet phenomena (such as "The Best Page in the Universe," etc). I've been watching the article for some time and I have seen a lot of entries come and go, and although self-promotion additions are quite often attempted, they are almost always deleted immediately (there are many users who keep a watchful eye on the article). The only entry on the page that you could actually argue this point for would be "Tron Guy" (aka Jay Maynard) who did write his own article/entry, although, as he admits, it was done before he read Wikipedia's policy on autobiographies (Wikipedia:Autobiography). And yes, Tron Guy is a genuine phenomenon (at one point he was a mainstay on Jimmy Kimmel's show due to the popularity of his Tron guy website). Wavy G 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the content is not verifiable (and I have no reason to think it's not), this page should be kept for the sole reason of givin people interested in the subject the information they need. A warning could be a good idea too. Something to tell people "The information on this page is presented as it was first presented in the forum/site/blog etc it first appeared. It may not be 100% truthful"
  • Keep. The Internet is a vast place, and new people discover it every day. This page should be kept so people can be educated about its past.
  • strong keep as above --El cid the hero 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, with clean-up, because many of the things on it aren't notable. But things that are notable should be cleaned up and expanded. Having a Wikipedia article on this is a great compilation of information that would otherwise be only scattered all over the internet and very hard to find. TheDavesr 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DarkShikari and Wwwwolf. --Kizor 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN, See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/65.8.88.157 where there are claims that sockpuppetry is involved in the voting here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The culture of the Internet is still very new and in a formative stage. Articles such as this give background to a variety of historical phenomena that would surely vanish from knowledge without. Reverend Raven 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep this is the best list of internet phenomenon on the internet. Pure inuyasha 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditch This Entry Internet Phenomena? More like it's a phenomena how this crap ended up in an encyclopedia. CesarB 05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent
Who really cares? These are far too many overly passionate poesters around here.
http://www.tomspine.com/photos/gmg2004/02_paul_me.jpg
FBI Loves Wiki 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When does the Voting Conclude?

  • When will this poll end?
Could a mod/admin explain?
AOL RULES!
BaldBEaver 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom - closing admin, please look out for sockpuppets first-time voters. Proto::type 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT (a web directory) and WP:V from WP:RS. WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL are not policy even if the interesitngness or usefulness were objectively provable. Any whuach are substantive and verifiable can be placed in an appropriate category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean that they couldn't be policy, if such a consensus was reached. MrD 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. --CygnusPius 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Failure to explain your vote may lead to it being ignored by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is history. Orangehead 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's huge and messy, and I'm sure some people have added thier own crap in the hopes that this will make it an internet phenomenon. But It does offer a good synopsis of various fads and things circulating on the internet. It just needs a huge amount of clean up, wikifying, and patroling by knowledgable people. I recognized about 60% of the list which means that at least that much is accurate. Perhaps there should be some sort of quantitative criteria for inclusion on the list, like number of downloads, reference in mainstream media, or the fad jumping from the internet into popular culture. I don't think a fad that only a very small group recognizes should be able to qualify. - Tiki God 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a fair bit of watching the article, but I've been loath to delete things just because I've never heard of them. Some objective criteria would be helpful, but those are quite difficult to nail down - just as notability is in the encyclopedia as a whole. Jay Maynard 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was looking for a list of cultural phenomenon, but instead found this list. While I agree that a good part of this article is against WP:OR, there are several items in the list that can be documented as existing phenomenon by trusted published sources. Several items in the list have this documentation within the individual articles. --Mattarata 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak Keep This list deserves to be deleted in its entirely; it has many faults and is clearly in need of major improvement. Still, would you rather give each of these seperate pages? If we delete this list, hardcore fans will probobly come and create individual articles about these topics, thus creating needless articles/vandalism. Elouamn 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, the vast majority of these things ALREADY have their own articles. Really. --Hamiltonian 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the very least, this serves as a useful index of all the articles concerning influences/phenomenon in internet culture. Also, the need for references/sources for this type of subject matter is almost unreasonable, as news reporters/publishers only cover certain things, and aren't even that knowledgable about the Internet in the first place; the news is pre-biased towards events that have been traditionally covered in news that may not be more significant than internet happenings, but are what the old people from the pre-Internet generation want to hear; one can't depend solely upon publications/news for what deserves to be information and what does not. I'm a bit tired right now, so if I didn't make sense up there, just ignore it. But I still think this should be a keep.--Dch111 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Dark Shikari Nevah 04:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does WP:OR even apply to lists, linking to articles that DO have sourcesz? Userpie 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dark Shikari. --Bigtop 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Strong Keep'" - one of the most useful sites I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostatlo (talk • contribs) 19:59, August 1, 2006
  • Strong Keep This is an invaluable collection of memes, wiki wiki - nick:kr4y - date: 1 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.37.95 (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 1, 2006
  • Keep, but only if we can establish some criteria on classifying something as a phenomenon (number of hits or views maybe? Or perhaps being mentioned in the news...) Zorath 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful and entertaining index of internet memes. -- Femmina 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Shikari, Useful list of esoteric internet history. Drett 18:24, 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 redirect to Lesser of Two Evils (Futurama), obviously. People: You don't need AFD for this, you really should just do it on your own. If you are not comfortable with the redirect, okay, then how about using something simpler?--SB | T 07:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbonium[edit]

I love Futurama, but a fictional element that appears only in a single episode is hardly worthy of its own Wikipedia page. —LrdChaos 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone really wants to merge, technically it violates things like WP:OR WilyD 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm also a Futurama fan. I don't see how it violates WP:OR but it is certianly about a non-notable subject. Also, I recommend creator reads Overlinking. Lurker your words/my deeds 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writer got all the information from watching the episode and many of the things (such as being made of neutrons and protons) he inferred from there. WilyD 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable
  • Redirect to Lesser of Two Evils (Futurama)... on the off chance that anyone is searching for this. --Kinu t/c 17:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lesser of Two Evils page and use page as redirect. --WillMak050389 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Kinu and WillMak050389 VoiceOfReason 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to and redirect Although I still believe the non-notability rule is ridiculous and pretty useless. ~ Gaiacarra 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.Derek Balsam 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppera[edit]

Speedy Delete - No notability is given, the article cant be justified on being here on wikipedia unless notability can be attained; Do they have a record label? Have they ever been in a top 40? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the band its self notable tho? Maybe she is but i cant see any justification that the band is. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see any assertion of notability. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite this notability then? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:14, 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 Deleted as {{db-author}}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming Community[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, non-notable, advertising from the looks of it. Ruaraidh-dobson 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not-notable, useless advertisement. --Jmatt1122 15:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless some useful external links are added. --Sbluen 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "added shortly" no assertion of notability. this article has no real useful information even if the website were better known

I apologize for this being enterd into the Wikipedia site, i will re-wright this article untill it meets Wikipedia rules regulations, in the meantime may i ask you to delete the article untill i gather up the information for the Gaming community section, i also need to look through the help section of this site befor i attempt to wright and other article . once again i apologize for this inconvenience --Vassili zaitsev 17:37, 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 Speedily deleted as nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go the bugs[edit]

This article is complete nonsense. I don't know the deletion policies well enough to do anything more than flag it and let someone with more Wiki-fu take care of it. Cipherswarm 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use the Speedy Deletion templates. For example, in this case, "db-nonsense" would be the appropriate one, which I have added. Dark Shikari 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Scorpiondollprincess 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G1 and A1, nonsense, no context. --Kinu t/c 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The "bugs" were a fictional creature that were used to immobilize and then attempt to brainwash the monkey team, I believe during one of the season finales. But you couldn't tell that from this article nor is this the way Wikipedia handles such minor plot devices. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: The content is unsalvageable. I have no idea what's being discussed. A LOT of work might change my opinion, but until then, a speedy delete. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 22:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Episode Four[edit]

Details are far too vague, seems to be a mere rumor. Would be more appropriate to have an article when more information is known. PureLegend 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Rituro 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too early, and very crystalballish. Only speculation could be put in this article.--Andeh 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was under the impression they were planning to make three episodes only. While further ones aren't out of the bounds of possibility, it's way too early to have an article on something that might possibly exist someday, especially without any official word on it. ~Matticus TC 12:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure rumors and speculation, this does not belong as a page. --Jack Zhang 08:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Thunderbrand 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe it's the same guy who wrote the Tekken 7 article ;) And yeah, I figured after Three they'd stop, and then just start with Half-Life 3 or something else. -- gakon5 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Combination 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Stellmach 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal ball --Wafulz 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 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. WP:NOT calls this one out in black and white, and the main defense seems to be that other dictionaries won't take these words (try Wiktionary) or that other, similar lists have been kept in other AFD discussions (however, AFD decisions aren't binding). Given blatant policy violation and no suggested solution to this policy violation, this list needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are dissatisfied with my decision to evaluate the policy arguments instead of counting heads, I suggest taking this to Deletion Review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. If this close is disputed, and it seems to be, the proper venue is deletion review. It is unacceptable for an admin involved in the debate to revert the close and undelete the article. I'm upholding Man in Black's close without passing comment on the rightness of it, and re-deleting. See you all at Deletion Review. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trinidadian English terms[edit]

del. wikipedia is not a dictionary. The encyclopedic article is Trinidadian Creole English. I say, merge what is possible there (together with a couple examples) and delete the dictionar. `'mikka (t) 22:42, 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, Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Dictionaries are anglo-centric repositories of 'traditional', 'proper' or 'common' words. The list of Trinidadian English terms is NOT 'merely a collection of definitions suitable for a dictionary. Indeed, this is a very and euro-centric view. Trinidadian slang, is just as much a part of its culture, as Carnival or Politics is. Sociologically, and anthropologically this list of Trinidad English terms provides a valuable insight into Trinidad culture, history, priorities, eccentricities, and biases. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then this List of Trinidad English terms is not a mere collection of definitions.User:Emirmohammed 15:03, 28July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Move each definition to its own page in wikitionary. --Sbluen 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on the List of British words not widely used in the United States AfD. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 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. Yanksox 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Yanksox 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The football forum[edit]

Non-notable website (Alexa ranking: 234,000); Delete Owen× ☎ 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Oldelpaso 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, aLii 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Slightly crufty, too, with the discussion of users. Vickser 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definately not worth an entry on Wikipedia. NJW494 14:08, 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. Rje 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hauntonism[edit]

Computer programming term. Hoax? 10 Google hits, all from Wikipedia and mirrors. Mattisse 16:03, 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 02:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EventWeb[edit]

Original Research - sources all point back to Seraja (also on AfD) or its principals.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR / protologism / product with no claim per WP:CORP. Apparently the company offers a service where you can upload files, then they invented this word to describe it. Weregerbil 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable product of a non notable company. Still having some second thoughts on having to delete Ramesh Jain who is the CEO of Seraja --Ageo020 20:57, 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. - brenneman {L} 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion lounge[edit]

Non-notable fantasy football league. The article claims that about.com calls the league 'the greatest', but a quick search of about.com has not shown this to be true. Article appears to be vanity drivel. Page creator keeps removing deletion tags. AlexTiefling 16:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable ... though it has a great name! Scorpiondollprincess 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE....--S2hansen@gmail.com 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE....--micollin@yahoo.com 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps we can fix the about.com issues b/c the guy who worked there has since left--24.128.127.145 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To fix the issues with the article, and to address the charge that this is non-notable, please cite sources where people independent of this fantasy football league have written and published things of their own about it. If you are not basing your content upon already published sources, then you are not working in accord with our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please use sources when contributing to Wikipedia, and cite those sources. Uncle G 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... is WP:NN and WP:VAIN, fails WP:RS and WP:V. --Kinu t/c 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, haven't seen a fantasy football league article yet that's been notable enough to keep (and many have tried). NawlinWiki 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NN,WP:VAIN,WP:RS,WP:V,WP:CORP,WP:SPAM,WP:CRUFT... --PresN 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. GassyGuy 21:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.110.61 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as entirely non-notable group. (Or delete slowly per PresN above, who make perhaps the best delete argument I've ever seen). --Bachrach44 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DON'T DELETE---again, what's important to one may not be important to others...we welcome any of you to our website or to examine our historical records of our league--24.128.127.145 00:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth Or[edit]

No indication of this temple's prominince is given. Google shows there are about 16,000 synagogues with this exact same name. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reason above. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. What must I edit in order to keep it? Should I give the website? Tamajared 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding is always a good idea (and websites for subjects which have them is always recommended), but I doubt you could expand it enough to prove that the temple is notable enough to deserve an entry in the 'pedia. There are millions of churches/temples/mospques around the world—we're not going to create articles for every one of them. If you can include information on why this one temple is very notable (e.g. First temple to be included in the Guinness Book of World Records, First temple to be completely constructed by blind masonists, etc.), it is less likely to be deleted. Otherwise, it's just another local temple that people can find by surfing the 'net. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have just listed Temple Beth Am for deletion here. Wildthing61476 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parishcruft (I know that Judiasm doesn't have parishes, but individual temples and parish churches are generally nn). Carlossuarez46 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- few synagogues qualify as any more notable than individual churches. Haikupoet 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual religious congregations are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 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. Keep recommendations make scant reference to our policies for inclusion. Rje 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practical mecha[edit]

This article appears to be just a write-up/argument for mechas. I fail to see the Wikipedia applicability of such material.Cipherswarm 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page because its section on the mecha page was getting very large. Malamockq 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. Scorpiondollprincess 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR, no WP:RS, better suited for a game website or forum than an encyclopedia. --Kinu t/c 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article was already present on the mecha page for several months now. It was very well written, and concise. Malamockq 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant essay/OR, not a single source cited. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very important article 69.208.141.179 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Note: IP's only edit.[reply]
    • Comment: Please explain this importance, in terms of the inclusion criteria, etc. AfD is not a vote. --Kinu t/c 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:: It's important for the same reason why you think this article belongs on a game website. Obviously you don't even know what mecha is to begin with. Read the article, understand what it says and what mecha is, and then you'll know why it is important. By the way, don't use acronyms because they can confuse new users. Lengis 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Actually, I do know what mecha is, because I read the article on mecha before suggesting my delete here. As for the acronyms, there's a reason I linked them to the articles to which they refer. --Kinu t/c 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Try reading the article we are actually talking about. Malamockq 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Please assume good faith, i.e., that I at least look at the articles up for AfD before making my recommendations. In this case, I decided to reassess, and in my estimation it still falls under original research and is unverifiable due to lack of reliable sources. Instead of making blind assumptions about other editors' abilities to assess the "importance" of an article (which is not a true criterion for inclusion, by the way), please do your best to address these issues if you wish to have the article kept. --Kinu t/c 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Excellent article. Must keep. Lengis 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative, shows multiple POVs without bias --WhiteDragon 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure essay and OR, and removing it from mecha was a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolute OR. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:26, 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 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rain[edit]

No indication of notability; nothing to write. The article was nominated for deletion before, a month and a half ago, which discussion ended without consensus, and since then, has sat as a "to do" item in WP:P*, with the request to improve the article. Today I tried my best to improve it. I doubled the number of references the article had. I tried to add text to the article from those references, but there just wasn't anything interesting to add. I have nothing against porn star articles, I have improved several that were threatened with deletion to the extent that they were kept ... but this one is as good as it's going to get, and that isn't very good. There just isn't anything to be written about Amber Rain that couldn't be written about a hundred others, she really is just another porn star, no awards, no interesting writeups, not particularly prolific or unusually well known within the industry, not notable within a genre niche, nothing. As Joe wrote, she still doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO, as in the previous nomination. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, just another porn star. Wildthing61476 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cute but, as per above, just another... Fan-1967 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note... and based on the picture, I'm a little skeptical about one of the claims in the infobox. Fan-1967 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article doesn't have to meet WP:PORN BIO, which is not policy. I find it hard to believe that there's nothing else to be said about her. She has worked with Ed Powers, after all. wikipediatrix 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question How many hundreds of performers have worked with Ed Powers? Are they all notable? Fan-1967 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure, but my instinct tells me "probably", assuming one weeds out the people who only did a film or two in the 1980s and haven't worked since. She seems to have an ongoing successful career and she Googles quite well - better, in fact, than mainstream actresses like, say, Annabeth Gish. Note that everyone is calling her a porn star, not just a porn actress. wikipediatrix 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the common phrase, and most people don't want to disrespect the acting profession. Fan-1967 18:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course she "Googles quite well". The pornography industry has a whole sub-industry devoted to Googlebombing the names of its actresses and actors. Wikipedia:Google Test explains this particular failing of the Google Test. And counting Google hits is not research, in any case. One has to actually read the pages that Google turns up. Uncle G 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please, please, wikipediatrix, find something else to say. I would love to find something interesting, unique, notable that couldn't be written about the next 100 porn stars. (By the way, as Fan-1967 writes, "porn star" is just the accepted term, and does not connote fame; it's a job description. Some are notable, most aren't. Using "actress" has similar issues implying acting. See Taija Rae's famous quote.) I tried hard to find a reason to keep this article, or even to write something interesting and encyclopedic, and just couldn't. Those 4 lines are as good as I could get. I really think there is no more - but if you prove me wrong, I'll be only too glad to keep the article. As Uncle G writes, read the pages that come up. I did that. They're image galleries with no useful text, hundreds of them. There were 2 articles and 3 database entries, with readable content of ... 4 lines. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, if you discount WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this isn't smut-pedia --Yunipo 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep,possible minor notability. I echo wikipediatrix's comment above that there must be more info. In the plus column, the "sexual exuberance" line at the end made me smile. -Colonial One 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the second person to opine that there must be more info, but nobody can find any. Fan-1967 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice to discourage rampant Googlebombing as noted by UncleG. Daniel Case 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she has appeared in 70 films that is notable to me Yuckfoo 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. --Myles Long 13:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. bbx 20:36, 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 redirect to Complex logarithm.. alphaChimp laudare 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary logarithm[edit]

Dubious, most likely OR. The proof relies on properties of the logarithm which are not valid for arbitrary (i.e., which are not positive real) arguments. There are different possibilities extending the logarithm, one common being leaving the logarithm for non-positive reals undefined (so that the domain is an open part of C). If one uses this branch of the logarithm, the formula is on one hand trivial, but on the other hand pretty useless. I strongly doubt it is mentioned like this in any renowned textbook. gwaihir 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge to Complex logarithm (which could use a lot of work itself). This whole line of reasoning boils down to the statement "Using Euler's identity, it is known that ln( − 1) = iπ," which is really a choice of branch, as the nom says. Staecker 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nothing here we should keep. (And not only does complex logarithm need work, it should be merged with natural logarithm.) --KSmrqT 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to complex logarithm. Can't … stand … peer … pressure … Argh! (Well, I could; but since "imaginary logarithm" may be something an unsuspecting reader requests, redirection is a better choice.) --KSmrqT 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is only one of the infinity of values of the complex logarithm (which should be mentioned in Natural logarithm, but not included in toto ;->, that's what {{see main}} is for. ) Septentrionalis 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will join the consensus to redirect; the article history is harmless. Septentrionalis 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Complex logarithm. Term seems a natural enough one for some one to search for. As we seem to be discussing the fate of Complex logarithm as well I'm weekly in favor of keeping them as seperate articles per Septentrionalis. --Salix alba (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Complex logarithm already. (I thought I commented here, already. It seems that I didn't.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Complex logarithm. Does one need an AfD to do that? Byrgenwulf 08:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unclear whether this term actually exists, cf. [43], [44].--gwaihir 09:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Actually, your links convinced me that the term does exist and was used historically by mathematical greats such as Johann Bernoulli and William Rowan Hamilton (cf Hamilton's report from link#1 and Stillwell's book from link #2). In fact, even Euler used it in at least two papers [45] [46]. I would say it is definitely a legitimate historical term. The fact that Internet searches can even find this I think is compelling. For example, Google Scholar wouldn't find many references to very old papers.--C S (Talk) 11:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, I think, it would be "logarithm of an imaginary number"; but it is a plausible search term, and hence a redirect to the article about logarithms of complex numbers is called for. Byrgenwulf 10:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it is neither the logarithm of an imaginary number, nor a logarithm which is itself an imaginary number.--gwaihir 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're dead right - I had forgotten what the article was about...I was thinking it was talking about scenarios like "log(3i)". Byrgenwulf 10:27, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deke the Scrange[edit]

Per the article, "a popular game created by three Program Assistants at the Massachusetts branch of Emagination Computer Camps". Not that popular, since Google comes up totally empty. WP:OR, WP:VAIN, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school camp one day. -- Fan-1967 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable game limited to one summer computer camp. NawlinWiki 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT probably comes closest - Richfife 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article would not be useful for anybody but the camp members and original authors themselves. Therefore, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. --JCipriani 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 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 Kept, speedily. BrokenSegue 04:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything2[edit]

Seen it spammed around a lot in see also links that people removed so I checked out the article and the article fails: WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:VAIN. Crazecontrolthefurious 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable website. Mentions in reliable publications (New York Times; Guardian; nominated for a Webby); affiliated with and promoted by Slashdot for several years. --Muchness 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be good if the references section of the article actually cited some of this stuff, rather than citing the web site itself as the sole source of information about the web site. Citing sources is the best way to avoid having an article brought to AFD. Articles that cite sources are rarely nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. Uncle G 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major website known by many people, and the article has plenty of sources. Diagonalfish 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has three sources, all of which are the web site itself. Uncle G 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction - You are correct, sorry. The article has few good sources, but it could use some like those Muchness mentioned. Still notable; the Everything Engine created for it is also used on notable sites. Diagonalfish 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be ideal if it were possible to say "The References section of the article demonstrates that the WP:WEB criteria are amply satisfied.". But that is not the case. Uncle G 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • With Muchness's latest modifications, I think we can now safely say this is the case. Diagonalfish 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muchness. Also suspect WP:POINT violation by nominator, as the account was created today, and his sole contributions have been to nominate Everything2, EvoWiki and Integralwiki for deletion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable website. Not the best -- or worse -- WP article, but there should be one nonetheless. --SuperNova |T|C| 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Kaustuv. Bad faith nom, looks like sock-puppetry. hateless 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Very clearly a bad faith nomination. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ridiculous nomination. The article would benefit from cleaning up, but it sure doesn't need deleting. — Haeleth Talk 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the above. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, apparent bad-faith nomination. Account created today, so sockpuppetry is likely. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (speedily for all I care), been around a long time and widely used, and has been influential on the design of other sites too (I think softlinks that some wiki engines also support originated here.) (Disclaimer: Last I checked I was in top users. If it helps, WP drains most of my time nowadays...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:36, 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 merge (well, redirect and add an external link). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integralwiki[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:VAIN. Crazecontrolthefurious 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reduce to one line comment and merge into "external links" of integral theory (with redirect). Not sure if it is a vanity article, but it is certainly unsourced and makes no assertion of notability. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kaustuv. hateless 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. (Obvious that it should be only an external link of integral theory.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EvoWiki[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:VAIN. Crazecontrolthefurious 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per previous VfD. The references in the article are rubbish, though. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good reason to suspect bad faith in this nomination. More sources are needed however. Diagonalfish 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another bad faith nom. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and improve --Guinnog 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Diagonalfish. Haikupoet 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible bad faith nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kaustuv. There is much more that can be said about EvoWiki besides the comparisons. PrometheusX303 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No reason to keep this open. Aye-Aye 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep --Peephole 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep!. I agree, this is a spurious nomination. The article needs to be improved, IMO, but that is not grounds for deletion. Moonsword 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The article itself needs plenty of work, but that is no reason to delete it. BlankVerse 09:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth Am[edit]

Non-notable church, no claims of notability Wildthing61476 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - Richfife 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual religious congregations (this one is a synagogue, not a church) are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Just another congregation. — Frecklefoot | Talk 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 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 Speedy Delete as a hoax. — Deckiller 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historyonyx[edit]

Likely hoax/parody based on 0 hits on Google except for Wikipedia and mirrors. Plus, if you really read the article, it is ridiculous. Mattisse 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax - Richfife 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - it's a hoax, and should have been speedied a long time ago. SB_Johnny | talk 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged as nonsense per nom.--Andeh 22:41, 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 redirect to SkyTeam destinations. - Bobet 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyteam hubs[edit]

This is redundant with the info already in Skyteam destinations and there is no reason for a separate article for this
Dbinder (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hubs are already marked in Skyteam destinations, making this completely redundant. Diagonalfish 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Redirect per AgentPeppermint, below. Diagonalfish 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - completely redundant. I'd also consider merge, but for right now, delete. --Bigtop 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first I considered a merge, but the information is all already present in the destinations list, so a merge wouldn't solve that problem. Dbinder (talk) 13:07, 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. Despite impassioned delete arguments, appears to warrant her own page per keep arguments. Turnstep 06:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Irwin[edit]

Not notable. Participation in a television show is by itself not sufficient to be notable, see WP:BIO. Even more, what she did on those shows can and currently is included on the television show pages. All similar characters of the BB-7-USA show shouldn't have a page either. Sijo Ripa 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per above. Sijo Ripa 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other actors/actresses have their own pages. Andrew73 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, she's not an actress. Secondly, the articles of non-notable actors/actresses should be deleted as well. You can help by putting a deletion tag on them. Thirdly, you haven't addressed the issue of notability in any way for this or other BB7-USA-participants. Sijo Ripa 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends how you define "actress." In any event, she is more notable than other Big Brother participants who have their own pages. In addition, she has participated in another major reality show, The Amazing Race and has won several local pageants. Andrew73 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All such BB-7-USA character pages should be deleted and they can and should be added to this deletion proposal. This is not an effort to single her out as the most non-notable, on the contrary. They all are non-notable. An merely participation in a few television shows makes one not notable, see: WP:BIO. Sijo Ripa 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, she does get about 350,000 hits on Google. Andrew73 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, she gets 24,000 hits for "Alison Irwin" and 283 for "Irwin Alison". Note however that a google test is a controversial tool and is rarely used to give conclusive evidence for notability. For instance: notable people from ancient history can get little or no hits, while a non-notable character from a contemporary television show can get a few thousands. Note also that she is already included on the BB-7-USA page, which is already more than enough. Sijo Ripa 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please state your argument(s). This is not a vote, but a discussion. Sijo Ripa 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Big Brother (USA season 7). Not-notable. There is already a big feature on this lady there. The editors of that article can add anything else they want from here. Merge can simply be undone by any editor nest day. BlueValour 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. has not made any notable acheivements outside her limited appearances on both programs. --Madchester 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- there is ample precedent on Wikipedia for keeping articles on insignifigant people. It would not be fair to apply new standards now. Orangehead 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles should be deleted as well. You can and should put a deletion tag on them. Thanks for the help! Sijo Ripa 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as Orangehead points out, there are plenty of articles on so-called insignificant people on Wikipedia; athletes, actors, politicians, authors, and so on. Who is insignificant to one user, who may not be a sports fan, may be significant to another. Anyone who appears on a reality program, especially making the final two of one series, probably more than passes the professor test, for example. Alternatively, a merge-and-redirect could be a compromise. I just don't think it's warranted in this case. --Kat0211 04:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-this article is doing no one any harm. Why remove it? Plus, several other previous Big Brother contestants have their own pages. Furthermore, this article may be helpful for Big Brother fans curious about Big Brother history.Jim16 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia is not an indiscisriminate collection of information nor a fan page (see WP:NOT). Secondly, I've already mentioned several times that other BB contestants should be deleted as well (except when they have done notable things off course). Thirdly, everything which is relevant to BB is already mentioned on the BB-pages. There is no need for a seperate page. Sijo Ripa 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please two big brother series plus another show is notable erasing this is the wrong answer Yuckfoo 01:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't see any point in differentiating between reality show contestants and actors. The line is too fuzzy. To me, being in three shows is notable. --Havoclad 04:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limecat[edit]

Non-notable, and notability not established or verified. if I removed all the unsourced POV/WEASEL/OR language, there'd be no article left. It's cute, but it's still WP:NFT. wikipediatrix 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep delete It IS a well known internet meme...however I'm starting to agree with the other users, do we REALLY need an article on every internet fad? Wildthing61476 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:I do think the article can be cleaned up quite a bit to remove the nonsense/original research. Wildthing61476 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - change vote to weak delete I think the WP:WEB policy needs a violent attitude adjustment, and/or the bias of the WP project towards it's comical perceptions of notability. Original: This is a well known meme in the right category. Are we going to delete all the other memes next? rootology 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42,000 hits on Google. rootology 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at any of those hits? Many of those hits are not about this photograph of a cat with a fruit rind on its head. Furthermore, the Google list craps out at only 761 hits before you get into repetitions from the same sources. wikipediatrix 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Funny" is not a reason to put an article in an encyclopedia. Information in this article is not noteworthy, and there's certainly no encyclopedia-worthy info (e.g. history, significance, etc). As far as deleting all other memes -- sounds reasonable to me. 42000 hits on Google means you don't need a Wikipedia article to get info about it. --JCipriani 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. If WP is to be a serious repository of knowledge, why should this be here? Tx9 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think limecat is adorable! But limecat is not encyclopedic. Not at all. Limecat needs to go. It doesn't belong here. Repeat: I love limecat... but not for wikipedia. --Bouquet 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm abstaining, but I want to comment that wikipedia never keeps the good stuff, like Brian Peppers, or other articles. Aughein 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I love limecat, this is not something I will remember in 5 years. Slotto 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will always remember the limecat. Aughein 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is but one of hundreds of funny pictures that I've seen on the internet. Not particularily notable in its own right. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless other valid arguments come up How can you all use noteability as a justification for deletion of something you have all heard of? Unless there is some seriously better argument given here this article should be kept. Albiet limecat is stupid but then so is ytmnd and a dozen other things that are notable. wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia, and it really should include articles on anything that has verifiable and potentially useful information to know about it. furthermore, just as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, neither is the deletion page, we do not know(although it seems quite obvious, that's not enough) that this stupid fad will fade away to total obscurity. The hamster dance has stayed quite some time, has it not(in terms of internet age). Deletion of articles on Silly Things does not make articles about Serious Things any better. i kan reed 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume we've all heard of it?? wikipediatrix 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Limecat before seeing it on this page, actually. In any case the article contains no actual noteworthy content. --JCipriani 10:09, 28 July 2006 (EST)
  • Delete and Spay as per nom. Wow!! there's a funny picture of a cute kitten on the internet!!! how rare and unusual!!!!! I must email it to all my friends and colleagues immediately!!!!!!!!! By the way, I'm being sarcastic. Totally nn. Bwithh 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, may become notable in the future, may not. Hasn't been in any news articles/media. Yes, it may be a funny picture and meme but hasn't become notable enough, yet.--Andeh 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails WP:WEB and it's not notable. My first time hearing of it was yesterday when I saw it referenced in a different deletion, and I was toying with the idea of nominating it myself. The article itself can hardly be said to be encyclopaedic content - it basically identifies the picture. I have to assume this is because there isn't anything else to be written about it. GassyGuy 20:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WRT "well-known meme": Just because you know about it doesn't make it well-known. Even if you and 100 of your closest friends know about it -- it's not well know. 100 people is not a lot. For every person you've met that has heard of lemoncat or whatever it is, I can pick out a few hundred thousand people that haven't, including myself. --24.3.121.180 04:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and leave the meme articles to the professionals. Karwynn (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - granted this may be "notable" on the internet since people have heard of it, but is there really much "knowledge" to it? All you can say without violating WP:NOR is that it's a cat with a lime on its head. You can figure that out by looking at the picture. Karwynn (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It`s a well known internet meme. I think the article is useful but can be cleaned a bit... I don`t see any good reason for the deletion. --seifip 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume we've all heard of it?? wikipediatrix 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not saying we've all heard of it... still Seifip, it might be well-known, but what is there to say on t? It's a cat with a lime on its head? Bah, that's not notable. think it's not so much a non-notable subject, it's just that there is no notable information about it to be inluded. Karwynn (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put that comment there, seifip cut and pasted an earlier comment of mine and put it there for some unfathomable reason.... here's the diff. wikipediatrix 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep NO!!!! INVERTED!!!! Limecat must live on eternally in all our hearts and minds. AshTM 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a picture posted on some forums. No evidence of any notability past that, or any media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a picture of a cat with a lime on its head. Whoop-de-do. If I want pictures of cats wearing stuff, I'll go to [[47]. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In fact, the very thing that brought me across this page in the first place was, a friend of mine mentioned, "Hey, remember that cat with a lemon on its head or whatever" and I thought, "Oh yeah! Limecat!". I went to the original site (limecat.net) only to find it in the clutches of an advertising sqautter. So I came to Wikipedia, which I expect to be a repository of our history, even the relatively insignificant. "Why do you assume we've all heard of it" is a terrible arguement; of course you've heard of it - you're debating whether or not to delete it from Wikipedia. That's the other thing I expect from Wikipedia -- if there's a meme I'm not familiar with, I will come here to find out about it. We shouldn't be the arbiters of whether or not something deserves to be remembered, just that, if it is remembered, and looked for, that the information be present for those seeking it. --Ojh2 04:12, 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 Speedy deleted as CSD-A6 (attack on Kulic, if he exists.) Xoloz 15:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jako Kulic[edit]

Obvious hoax. I figured this was some character created by the users of a message board, or by some second-tier shock jock, but even as a fictional character, he is not notable. A google search for "Jako Kulic" yields 35 results, the only English results being Wikipedia pages. The page was authored by a redlinked user who created nothing else. The page is largely (and by its own admission) a discography of Trent Reznor, cut-and-pasted from his article. The mini-bio is lame, but someone might want to stick it at BJAODN. Bhumiya (said/done) 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is complete nonsense. --JCipriani 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'nuff said. Akradecki 21:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIUG[edit]

I know I'm taking a chance here -- but this seems like advert spam for this web forum. The article on the forum's subject, Informix, already lists a link to this user's group under External links. Does the forum need it's own article too with 4 more links to the forum website? Mattisse 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. IIUG article should be merged into an Informix category (if there is any IIUG-specific information) or left as an external link there, and IIUG could redirect there. This article contains no actual content. --JCipriani 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This doesn't appear notable enough to motivate anyone to even take care of the article...been on the wikify list since April. Akradecki 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 06:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kole[edit]

Non-notable candidate for public office. Remove the fact he is running for office and he would easily not fit WP:BIO Wildthing61476 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Remove from Article Deletion Motion for Summary Judgement - Statements:
  1. Established is 1000's of candidate Bios on wikipedia
  2. links to Campaign websites
  3. Article is authorized by person written about
  4. Article is stubbed from long time existing Indiana Politician catagory.

Request removal from Articles for deletion at this time as precedence has already been established within the wikipedia arena.

    • Comment No. This is Wikipedia not a court room. Precedence for these types of things simply means that we've missed the others; they'll be nominated for deletion eventually. If you are going to be all "smart" about it then at least give yourself some credibility with a signature. --JCipriani 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended Coding Indiana Political Stub has been added
  • Further Discussion Category:Indiana_politician_stubs is large and well established. It would appear precedence is already set and all that is needed is a redirect link from stated page. Not only are candidates listed but campaign links exist all over.
  • Catagory Question As you two know far more than I on Wikipedia creation: Do I create the catagory under Indina Elections or does someone else? Just an old DOS pascalian. - Ancasta
  • Notability Defense In the State of Indiana Secretary of State race. Gaining 2% of the public vote maintains ballot access for all candidates of that party (last election Mike Kole took 6% of the Vote). Which makes him notable for being the first Libertarian in the State of Indiana to maintain ballot access. Coming in second place per county makes that party one of the two major parties of that county and places that party on all County Boards (non-partisan rules). Displacing either the Republican or Democratic party. Indiana Code Title 3. Ancasta
    • Question Which counties has Mr. Kole come in second in? Has he actually displaced either the Democrats or Republicans in any county?
  • Search Engine Defense In the Month of June, 2006 'Kole' was searched 3003 times. Determined by Keyword tool by overture.
    • Question How many of them were for Mike Kole? There is also a DC Comic book character "Kole" and some other misc. hits.
  • Comment To add to my nomination, this entire article is a cut & paste from www.mikekole.com, which would also violate Wikipedia's copyvio policy. Wildthing61476 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have vocal authortity from Mr.Kole to bio him. If you wish to verfiy that I can give you his cell phone number. Ancasta...
      • Comment Wikipedia is not to be used as a campaign platform. There have been numerous other articles removed for the same reason. If he was to win the election, then by all means he would be worthy.Wildthing61476 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I humbly appologize for the candidate inclusion. All references have been removed and no links to web sites suggesting such is in the article. That said: I would think that anyone on a ballot of the 3rd largest political party in the U.S.A and subject to many newspaper articles in regard to his life and comments would be notable.
  • Delete He's not even a candidate. He is the local party chair. As a staunch Libertarian myself, I know that usually means that you took a potty break when they nominated and voted on the chair. Not notable. Dipics 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete He is a candidate if you look up Indiana SOS candidates. He is very notible in Hamilton County, IN and and important person to the public in Central Indiana. Candidate references have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancasta (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 July 2006
  • Comment The above's author has only posted to this AfD and the article nominated. Wildthing61476 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone has to have a Day One begining.
  • Comment I stand (actually sit) corrected. I think that the best solution here would be a redirect to the as-yet-unwritten article on the S.O.S. election in Indiana. As per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, elections first, then candidates. And, while I know nothing about this specific election and am a Libertarian myself, I strongly suspect that Mr. Kole will poll in the low-to-mid single digits. Not notable enough for an article but a good candidate for a redirect. Dipics 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question So would 'Indiana Secretary of State Election' be more acceptable? - Ancasta
      • Comment In my opinion, that would be a good way to handle this. Then all the candidates could be listed on that page and possibly redirects under their names to that page. Dipics 20:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redress See top of this page. Indiana Politicans catagory already well establish and this article is linked to it.
  • Delete seems like a nice man. Unfortunately, I don't see him meeting WP:BIO. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a who's-who. Akradecki 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Britanica Encyclopedia's are a Whos-Who and an Event tracker and a dictionary of sorts. - Ancasta
  • Delete The argument for keeping him seems to be that there are other politicians on Wikipedia. This is not a good reason. I don't see this candidate as notable. Beaner1 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, this article reads like a campaign ad. The worst part? "Article authorized by Mike Kole". --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article authorized to express not a FAKE! With 1000's of other notable people that are currently and have been on ballots - to single one out is prejudice.
    • Comment Prejudice? Speaking only for myself, I didn't prejudge anything. I knew nothing about this person before I read the article in question. It may seem random or arbitrary but prejudice has nothing to do with it. And, it is the notability of the subject that is in question, not whether or not he is on a ballot. Dipics 12:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The existence of other articles that break guidelines is not a reason to break them again. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge to an article on Indiana Secretary of State Election (2006). (Or possibly delete under the WikiLawyer clause.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encyclopedias are not for campaign ads. Agree with Coredesat.--JCipriani 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidacy alone does not warrant inclusion. The other accomplishments listed also do not warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is run by guidelines, not by precedent. There may be numerous articles for other candidates, but most of them are also up for deletion for failing to meet guidelines. The article reads like a campaign ad, which would violate WP:SPAM as well. Wikipedia is not free ad space. It does not exist to be used as a campaign tool. The 'Article Authorized by Mike Kole' is the clincher. It is strong evidence that the article is being vetted by the campaign, which would fail WP:VAIN. --DarkAudit 02:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynabyte Solution[edit]

WP:NOT for advertising Gekedo 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (Delete) --Gekedo 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 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. Rje 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EFB-Pro[edit]

This articles fails WP:SOFT, non-notable, highly specialized software package.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in this industry for 22 years. There is no more misunderstanding between pilots than that of climb gradient requiremnts in transport category aircraft. The text of the article is accurate and adds to the understanding of the factors involved, including 5 minute engine limits etc. It also simply states that the software is the only application that performs this operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.121.249 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 July 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, this is also spam. --JCipriani 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete --Peta 06:41, 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 DELETE. Rje 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian blogosphere[edit]

Article is non-encyclopedia, but rather seems to be simply a collection of links. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing to suggest this is a topic worth saying anything about. --Improv 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't even come close to being a legitimate encyclopedia article. Akradecki 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or Merge into Blogosphere. Attic Owl 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 06:41, 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 delete. Wickethewok 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Pridemore[edit]

it's just an advertisement. Very non-encyclopedia, is clearly written by the person in question.

  • Delete - Not notable. Classic example of "Vanity Voice" - Richfife 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've actually met this guy, and while he may have been nice, is definitely non-notable. - Lusy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dutch (film)[edit]

No sources, not even basic information, wiki is not a crystal ball The Kids Aren't Alright 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At least there is a polite "thank you" in the article after it acknowledges that it has no information. Agent 86 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for crystal ball reasons. Should the film come out it could either have a page made or redirect to Disney. SliceNYC 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Guinnog 23:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above-->_RJ_1o1_< 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep and expand: This appears to be a film in production, and it already has a page on IMDb as well as an article at Variety.com. — Michael J 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:Think about it. as the time for this film comes closer, there will ne much more info.all we have to do it put an expand tag on the article.Soon it'll be expanded.Please keep this article.-- Cute 1 4 u 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Graceffo[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. Admittedly the guy has published some books, but his use of Wikipedia is pure self-promotion. He's not a good citizen either -- he reverted the effort to size down his page (remove his myspace link, etc). If he won't follow the rules, we don't need his personal page cluttering up wikipedia. This stuff is fine for his myspace page but doesn't belong here. --technopilgrim 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above as vanity. Consists almost entirely of links to his own articles; little assertion of notability, certainly no good sources linked that were not written by him. Diagonalfish 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that the books were published (an ISBN # doesn't count). Weak Delete OK, I found the Amazon links. Still doesn't reach notability I think. - Richfife 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly vanity. Akradecki 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didnt quite understand what happened when some of my links were gone. I thought something had gone wrong and I restored them. I have asked my webguy to decrease the page dramatically. If the page still looks like vanity, please help me to edit it down. As for actual contrbutions to the world at large, Monk from Brooklyn is still the only book ever written by a foreigner who studied at Shaolin Temple. In fact, as far as I know, only two first hand books have been written about training in China. The first was Mark Salzman, Iron and Silk. My Taklamakan Desert book is one of only a very few, I have been able to find only two others, about a modern crossing of the Taklamakan Desert. My articles about hill tribes and ethnic minorities in Thailand and Cambodia are some of the only ones that exist on these subjects. (The books have definitely been published, which you could verify by checking with amazon or by googling the titles.)

So, please help me to make the page acceptable. But please reconsider deleting it entirely. Antonio Graceffo antonio@speakingadventure.com

  • Comment - There's kind of an unofficial rule of thumb in regards to notability: If you aren't notable enough that someone is willing to create an article about you entirely on their own initiative, then you're probably not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. You mentioned that your "webguy" (i.e. publicist) put up the article. That's a big no-no on Wikipedia. Articles should be created by disinterested parties. I could make a case of notability for myself ("Created first live broadcast audio system for the internet! Created first live broadcast video system for the internet! Developed some of the critical engineering protocols to allow video games to play smoothly on the general internet!"), but there's no page for me. If someone's inspired, they'll do it. Meanwhile, I'll wait. - Richfife 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That would be cheating - Richfife 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete give the guy a chance to trim his page of self propaganda. JAnne 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Peta 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trimmed down, still essentially a CV. Could be recreated by someone other than the subject if/when any of his books get reviewed. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Extreme[edit]

Fails WP:WEB rather badly, Alexa rank >160,000, non-notable, non-encyclopedic VoiceOfReason 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this article short it's also inaccurate. It's never had that many members and it's not the most realistic. Oldest maybe but it's certainly not the most advanced. It doesn't record the sites history although if this was written by a staff member that would explain it since its full of said conflict and the staff is corrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFlare (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 August 2006

  • Brevity is not a reason to delete an article, and neither (to some extent) is inaccuracy. Non-notability is. VoiceOfReason 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of this article really is not notable, but an article about RPGs based in the Harry Potter-verse in general certainly would not come amiss since it is a highly popular fandom activity and certainly is noteworthy. At least as noteworthy as fanfiction. Mothwing 22:35, 1 August 2006

I don't believe it should be deleted. A few of us on the site are currently working on putting an accurate history together to edit the Wikipage. We will update it as soon as possible. A few of us already have added our two cents. I've been a member of the site for almost as long as I can remember, so I am working on putting the history together myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.169.202.145 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 August 2006

  • Comment - Once again, brevity and accuracy are not the issue here. Notability is. Review the terms of WP:WEB. Does the subject of this article meet those criteria? If you believe it does, explain how. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. VoiceOfReason 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article makes no attempt at providing verifiable notability. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Satori Son 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Rock[edit]

Nonnotable programming format of a single radio station; prod tag removed. NawlinWiki 18:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete but not per NOM! delete because it does not cite an authoriaty on the subject, and reads like an advertisement. WP:NN is overused because it's so arbitrary. There are plenty of good reasons to delete articles like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)
  • I think this article needs to be modified so it is better and more notable not completely deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.104 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete no notabilty demonstrated.--Peta 06:43, 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 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California property bubble[edit]

This is not so much an encyclopedia article as it is an essay. As such, it is full of original research and speculation, which would be fine in an economic journal, but is inappropriate here. Indrian 19:05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nothing wrong with it, just out of place - Richfife 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a bubble, by definition, involves a crash in prices after a peak is reached. That hasn't happened, and this article shouldn't happen until then. --technopilgrim 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when or if it happens, the actual article should include a year—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 2006-07-28 20:09:37 (UTC)
  • Delete - speculative, violating WP:OR -- Whpq 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge relevant info to United States housing bubble. Medtopic 23:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreate if and when it happens. --Guinnog 23:25, 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. Sango123 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of long range rockets used in wars[edit]

What sense could such a list have? Jestix 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There isn't even an article on long range rockets, so there's nothing for this list to expand upon or provide more information in support. Agent 86 19:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there might be some sense in List of long range rockets (never know when you need one) but not in this. Dlyons493 Talk 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are *not* long range rockets, they fit into short range ballistic missile (SRBM), middle range ballistic missile (MRBM), intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM), theatre ballistic missile (TBM), and possibly battlefield ballistic missile and direct-fire missile/rocket (immediate range) and rocket artillery. None of the listed rockets qualify for long rang ballistic missile (LRBM) (which is what most SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) fit in, a range of about half a continent to a full continent / half an ocean to a full ocean). 132.205.93.88 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ManiF 02:03, 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 as clear consensus: non notable music group. — Deckiller 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PanDemonium[edit]

Contested db-band, yet another non-notable musical group that thinks it needs an encyclopedia entry. VoiceOfReason 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete with {{db-band}}. In its current form it fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:VAIN..."we are gonna play our second gig tonight" (from the talk page) kinda seals the deal that this really is a (currently) non-notable band. Recreate if/when this cover band ever becomes notable. -- Scientizzle 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - No claims to notability. Name is too common to do an effective websearch. Pretty clearly not the 70's/80's British group on AllMusic - Richfife 19:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally flagged for speedy deletion, but the article creator cleared it. It's my understanding that once a speedy is contested it must go through the AfD process; please correct me if I'm mistaken. VoiceOfReason 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, it's proposed deletions (using {{prod}}) which have to be taken to AfD if the tag is removed. Speedy tags can be re-applied, it is the responsibility of whoever removes the tag to explain why the article isn't a speedy candidate. -- AJR | Talk 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done the same thing before, too. Sometimes this is the only way to show a particularly motivated article creator that you're on firm ground when applying db tags. As the AfD snowballs, it reduces the perceived culpability of the nominator & deleting admin (and often diffuses the anger of the author). -- Scientizzle 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. -- AJR | Talk 19:32, 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 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yugioh: the three egyptian god card effects[edit]

WP:NOT a games guide. Article is very esoteric and unnotable information relating to the Yugioh trading card game. Gekedo 12:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference for the egyptian god card effects from the tv show.If this has to be deleted, then I think that the article on the three sacred beasts should be deleated because it relates to card effects too!

Perhaps a merge, then, to 'Card effects in Yugioh'? --Gekedo 12:35, 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. Fails WP:NOT - WP: Not a Crystal Ball --Madchester 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park 5[edit]

WP is not a crystal ball. "Confirmed for release in 2012"?? I kinda doubt that -- this in fact seems like a hoax to me. NawlinWiki 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Jurassic Park 4 isnt even released yet, which is set for a release date in 2008. In any case, it is rare that a follow-up would be confirmed, let alone even announced, if its previous movie hasnt been released yet.--Shrek05 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No point whatsoever to have this article until MAYBE 2009.--AeomMai 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete AfD does not operate under innocent until proven guilty. The article must establish its verifiablity, which this does not. A likely hoax. Vickser 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal ball. Unverifiable. Likely hoax. Fan-1967 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry about all this. [[48]]--Dragon Helm 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too early/crystalballis/unveriable.--Andeh 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, crystal-balling to the extreme. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. keep this page up until we have proof its not true... uh, that's not how it works. --Kinu t/c 05:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, Koolboi141 is repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article, among other forms of vandalism. Suggest action be taking in this regard. --Kinu t/c 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I haven't seen this much crystal balling since that fortune tellers convention. Ryūlóng 00:55, 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. WP is not a Crystal Ball

The Fast and the Furious 4[edit]

Again, WP not a crystal ball; created by author of Jurassic Park 5, nominated above. NawlinWiki 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Vickser 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiablecrystalballism Fan-1967 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:42, 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 delete copyvio. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiveSite Content Management Server[edit]

This article appears to be Advertisement Jmatt1122 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How should this article be edited to reflect the product and not be considered advertising?

See WP:SOFTWARE, WP:5P, WP:MOS. Look at some other articles for comparable products. And above all ensure that you establish the significance of the product by reference to multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 20:08, 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 KEEP.' passes notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madchester (talk • contribs)

Canyon Vista Middle School[edit]

Non Notable School Newspaper98 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep while I'm normally against keeping middle schools, this one claim notablity by winning two blue ribbons from the United States Department of Education and has also been chosen by the Texas Education Agency as one of the top ten middle schools in Texas. Jaranda wat's sup 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DP. --Usgnus 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep middle school, but shown it is significant in Texas --Shrek05 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, the school is notable. Bahn Mi 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a non-notable middle school that has won what appear to be a couple of recent awards. That will hopefully happen in the life cycle of any school. High schools are notable, but middle schools are not.Erechtheus 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one Texas best schools. Anonymous 19:35, 28 July 2006 (CST)
  • Keep. This school asserts notability, unlike most school articles - it has won national awards. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Mass-nominations are not helpful, and the nominations/Prods placed by this editor today are highly questionable.--Nicodemus75 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. -- Koffieyahoo 07:35, 29 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. This is what was referenced in the vote, but it does NOT apply. This is not a directory; it is an article about a specific school.
8. Instruction manuals - Not Applicable
9. Internet guides - No
10. Textbooks and annotated texts - Not a chance
11. Plot summaries - Nope
I sincerely hope that we can get clarification as to which specific aspect of WP:NOT is being violated by this specific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)
Comment: I'd like to remind the above editor who provided us with this textdump that the list he provided strictly contains examples and is by no means an inclusive list for all that Wikipedia should not list. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:50, 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 all. The typical cliches can be talked about at the movie genre articles, as long as they're sourced. In the present form, the lists are original research and filled with cruft. - Bobet 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cliches[edit]

Following the successful afd of List of film clichés by genre and the current afd on List of action film clichés, I'm nominating the other sublists of cliches for deletion.

None of these cite any sources except the films themselves, a blatant violation of our prohibitions on original research, and they're essentially huge collections of whatever editors happen to think are cliches, making them fundamentally unverifiable.

Film lists:

I've gone through some of the entries on List of cliché lists, and the ones for computer games, advertising, and comics have at least cited other articles which recognized things as cliches, even if they are filled with unsupported entries, so I'll hold off on nominating the rest for now.

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. What is "cliche" is subjective and a matter of personal opinion. Agent 86 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Agent88. Total POV flouting of WP:OR. Most of the material on these pages aren't even really clichés anyway, they're simply opinionated lists of plot devices common to virtually all forms of fiction since the 19th century. Wikipedia articles are no place for personal opinions and observations. Crabapplecove 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all agreed with all above.--JCipriani 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletel all per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Riki 11:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The horror movie cliches have certainly been written about by movie critics such as Roger Ebert, although I certainly don't have a citation handy. Ebert also wrote about romantic movie cliches, using "SEMIOLI" to refer to the "semi-obligatory lyrical interlude" such as a couple running through the park in slow motion, or the "cute meet." Some of these articles may be devoid of references, but certainly the references are there to be found. Hollywood's lifeblood was the movie cliche. Westerns? Gimme a break. Thre should be referenced articles for Western( a man walks into a room where someone has been shot. He picks up the gun just in time for the sheriff to walk in and arrest him), Horror movies, and Romantic movies, as well as the Evil Overlord movie cliches which have been collected in various places.Edison 03:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As above. Good for blogs. Bad for an encyclopedia. MarkBuckles 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as I like these articles, and as much hard work I personally put into cleaning them up, I just don't see any way to possibly verify something like "movie cliches." And there's no way to keep up with them--the edits seem endless. I cleaned them up to the best of my ability, and two weeks later they were completely filled with crap again. Ohh, all those hours wasted that could have been spent searching for Internet porn. Wavy G 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the horror page, for example, needs a serious rewrite. Maybe condense the many pages into one titled "common film cliches" etc. and divide the page by genre. BethEnd 03:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move Yes it needs cleanup, yes it may not be Wikipedia-standart material, but I've seen dumber lists around, really. And these are ones I actually find of some use. Kobayen 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of POV and I've noticed a lot of non-cliches. (I.E. a zombie having to be killed with a shot to the head is not a cliche, its a rule. You might as well say vampires being staked are cliched)--CyberGhostface 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Could be more thouroughly edited but very to the point and useful, a definit kepper.User:Aries green monkey23:10, 6 August 2006 (UCT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slidi[edit]

WP:NOT for something made up one day. Created by User:Davidpk212 (both the game and the page). -Royalguard11Talk 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. -Royalguard11Talk 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of being widespread, of durability, or having more than one person currently interested in it. CHE 22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Missmarple 19:24, 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 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.K. Dennis[edit]

Unencyclopedic entry by self-published poet. Victoriagirl 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails my stub test.(i.e. stubs are only useful if something links to them)i kan reed 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if only self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AuthorHouse self publishing company Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George H. Moody Middle School[edit]

Non Notable School Newspaper98 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral (lean to weak keep). Barely midrange on WP:BEEFSTEW, and we're talking about a middle school; however, given the sharp divide on whether or not school articles are inherently encyclopedic and by what standards we determine whether a school article is encyclopedic, I expect to see a much more substantive reason for the nomination of a school than simply "non notable". That might be fine for less controversial topics, but not for schools. I see this user is new (so we ought to be careful not to bite), and we're all bound by WP:Assume good faith; however, all these nominations without a substantive explanation of why they are being nominated verges on violating WP:POINT. This editor is helping no one by the large number of nominations (s)/he has posted for AfDs on schools. Agent 86 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DP and IB school, which means locally regionally significant. --Usgnus 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only 502[49] IB Middle Years Programme schools worldwide. --Usgnus 19:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There can be an argument that high schools are inherently notable and worth keeping on Wikipedia (i personally disagree), however, middle schools are most definitely insignificant. It is an IB middle year program, which does not make it locally significant. Only IB diploma schools are significant and that is designated to high schools. Unless more information can be provided to prove the academic excellence of this particular middle school, im going to keep opinion as delete--Shrek05 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, the school is significantly notable. Bahn Mi 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per well established precedent. --Rob 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, locally significant. Kappa 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live one exit from this school and couldn't have told you its name. The local significance claim seems wrong to me. I am as stringent a high school notability supporter as there is, but I cannot extend that rationale to middle schools. Erechtheus 23:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Shrek05. I don't see how this "all schools are notable" religion has formed at Wikipedia. It's just a building with kids in it. Where's the notability? Seriously, someone spell it out for me because I'm not getting it. Crabapplecove 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable middle school. WP:SCHOOLS failed, and precedents are not binding. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mass-nominations of this sort do not stike me as good faith acitivity. In fact, they are downright disruptive, nothing is helped by mass-nominating schools for deletion.--Nicodemus75 02:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mass-noms, huh. This user tagged for prod a dozen or so articles, most of which had no more content than "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar.{{navbox}}" The user's only mistake was not tagging them for speedy deletion, as CSD A1. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Moreover, since every school got its own nomination this can't be considered a bad faith mass nomination. -- Koffieyahoo 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that we can all agree that a new account nominating 23 articles for either AfD or WP:PROD all on the same day is not in any way helpful or done in a spirit of trying to build consensus. The fact is, that 23 school articles on the same day by the same editor is by definition a "mass nomination". The fact that each got it's own nomination, just makes it worse because they are all nominated on the same basis. There is a clearly stated mechanism and procedure for nominations of this sort. I do not think that it unreasonable in a case like this to suggest that this was an intentional act which violates WP:POINT--Nicodemus75 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment most of these prods and easily removed, so by definition only marginally disruptive. -- Koffieyahoo 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding arguments for the notability of schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above. --TheM62Manchester 07:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Henrico County Public Schools. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good start to the article. Needs time to grow. --JJay 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article on a worthy topic. Piccadilly 13:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Christopher Parham above. Precedent has long been set. Orangehead 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - worthy article for worthy school. Alansohn 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable school. Even the local doesn't think it should have an article. And claims about precedent are ridiculous- there is no clear precedent, merely a long history of vote stacking and no consensus votes. And even if there were a real precedent this would be a good case to alter the current precedent. JoshuaZ 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- i'll admit needs some improvement this school is highly remarkable, second in county in SOL scores, made up 1% of the winners of the scolastic writing awards hosted at carnegie hall in NYC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.120.52 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Usgnus and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, this is a notable school which offers the International Baccalaureate program. Silensor 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outcome of the school wars. Gazpacho 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not to pick on you Gazpacho, but your opinion makes absolutly no sense at all.--Isotope23 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this baccalaureate school is important and verifiable Yuckfoo 23:05, 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 retracted upon the word of Wjhonson . `'mikka (t) 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin H. Freedman[edit]

  • del. I have no idea whether this person real or notable, but the article was deleted once and recreated without any improvement of verifiability. The provided links cannot be accepted as reputable, and some "evidence" is outright false (Woodbury Soap Company Woodbury ad speaks about John H., not about Benjamin H.) I have no doubt there were quite a few anti-Zionists (or anti-Semites, whatever label can be), but what exactly trace in the history he left to warrant an encyclopedia article? Unfortunately various Anti-Semitic sources are well-known for manipulations with history even to a greater degree than they ascribe to Jews. `'mikka (t) 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person is real. The article is currently being worked on, by myself, who have not a single anti-semitic bone in my body (by the way). He appears to be fairly notable. I'm still working on the sources. I am not the original author, by the way. I only got interested when I saw the conflict on the ANI board. Wjhonson 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From what I can discern, this does appear to have been a real person, with some strong racial and religiously charged opinions during his time, to put it lightly. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, it seems to be a different version from the stub that was first deleted (see here if you are an admin), information is verifiable. Is it notable? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to give this article time to expand. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jones (architect)[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete. Deli nk 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep WP:BIO states - "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". The international magazine Wallpaper* has just listed Alan Jones Architects as one of the top twenty five innovative architects in the world - and features the house of Alan Jones. (August 2006 issue).

k76 23.53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment occasional mentions in the architectural press are not uncommon for almost any architect. To keep an article because the subject is potentially significant according to only one source would be inappropriate, and would spawn scores of vanity articles by architects of similar standing
    • Comment that is what WP:BIO states - who are we to argue. Also appears to be widely published - suggesting more than one source.
  • keep looking at the summary of the article... he was a vice president of RIBA, which is at least somewhat important in the world of architechture. i kan reed 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a multiple award-winning architect...seems notable enough. Akradecki 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has won multiple awards, awarded by a society of which he was Vice President. Is this credible?! 213.212.1.50 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contrary to nomination, he does meet WP:BIO. In reponse to anon at IP213.212.1.50, these sort of awrad are usually judged by an independent panel; panel listed on AAI's hideous flash website looks credibly independent. --BrownHairedGirl 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haverford Pong[edit]

Another thing made up while drunk in school one day (etc) Rklawton 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom i kan reed
  • Delete. Millions of drunken students. Thousands of schools, with their own versions of drinking games. Nobody else cares. Fan-1967 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Delete. I've made up some drinking games in my day, but that doesn't mean they belong on Wikipedia. --Natalie 21:11, 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. Sango123 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popsessions[edit]

No assertion of notability, hyperbolic description. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Article reads as vanity/advertising. Wildthing61476 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. Delete. --Natalie 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Side note: The AFD template has been removed numerous times by the same editor. --omtay38 01:54, 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 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charter software[edit]

Spamvertisement; promotional and unverified original research. Does not assert notability per WP:CORP or draw on reliable sources. Melchoir 20:27, 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess During World War II[edit]

Random collection of facts Guinnog 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it could never be anything other than a collection of trivia. Which is why I would argue it should go. Maybe there are bits that could go into the main Chess article or the timeline. --Guinnog 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Copied by permission"? I'm not sure I believe it (or the process was proper). --ColourBurst 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is wrong with chess? It is a nice game and the facts in this article are also nice. Daborhe 10:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chess certainly is a nice game. I am not proposing to delete the main article chess. This article seems to be unsalvageable trivia though. It seems to breach policy as well as possibly being a copyright violation, as ColourBurst points out. You're right that some of the trivia are quite interesting; we would lose nothing by deleting this article and adding the link the article is copied from to the main article. What do you think? --Guinnog 11:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have Origins of chess and Timeline of chess (which could both be further developed). Chess played no real part in WW2; would we also want Chess During WW1, Chess During the Vietnam War etc? Plus the copyright question. Sorry, I don't mean to harangue you or to sound sarcastic; I agree we need more on the history of chess, I just don't think this article contributes to it. --Guinnog 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as part of chess history as stated above. Orangehead 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the listed facts are either not notable or can be found somewhere else. For example, article Alexander Alekhine has a paragraph about his life in WW2. Don't see why a special article is needed to collect these facts. Andreas Kaufmann 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The listed facts can be found somewhere eles but I think some people would prefer to look at one article which contains all the information instead of looking through hundreds of articles.--Taida 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's wrong with random collection of facts and trivia?--Taida 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't encyclopedic, at least in this case. There are also copyright issues. --Guinnog 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This can be arranged into a timeline or something. Also, there are no copyright issues. At the bottom of the article it says "Original Source: Bill Wall, copied by permission".--Taida 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretty indiscriminant collection of trivia. Not a big fan of direct copies from Geocities sites either. Wickethewok 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no citations to reliable sources. Nor is "by permission" a valid license as far as I know; you can't then release that material under the GFDL. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If info is valid, Wikisource it. it's just formatted, presented poorly. kzz* 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo's Class[edit]

Original research. While database/OO issues are well-known (see Object-Relational impedance mismatch, The Third Manifesto), this name is purely a protologism. No mention of this in the literature. Perhaps some of this can be salvaged into a different page with a more appropriate title --EngineerScotty 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original author has blanked article; I've thus put it up for speedy delete under G7. --EngineerScotty 23:06, 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 keep. alphaChimp laudare 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorewood High School, Shoreline, Washington[edit]

Completely non notable suburban high school. I have attended this school for 4 years and it offends me that it is included in this encyclopedia. The article makes no claim of notability, making statements like: As of 2005-06, Shorewood has advanced placement (AP) offerings in... and Most students go on to attend a two-year or four-year college after graduation and As of 2006, there are more than 100 full and part time faculty members at Shorewood High School. I will also list the school's equally non notable cross town rival. Musaabdulrashid 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep for both. High schools generally are notable. If we go down this road, a great many articles would be up for deletion, see List of high schools in Washington. Sorry the article offends you. --TeaDrinker 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The specifics of the notability of schools is a very old discussion (see WP:SCHOOL), and is controversial. Perhaps better phrased, this high school is as notable as most which have articles, following a de facto standard. --TeaDrinker 21:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (nominator's vote) Of all American high schools, less than a third are probably notable. These are suburban schools. The performance of their students in PSAT results is less than notable (about 2 NMS finalists per year), and everything in the article could be guessed without reading it. Other high schools in washington are notable, such as Garfield High School (Seattle) and Roosevelt High School (Seattle), for the performance of their students and social significance. The obviousness of this article as a target of vandalism for students is also an issue because, to be frank, Shorewood students hate their school. --Musaabdulrashid 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. Nominator's reasoning is specious anyway. Haikupoet 00:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it would offend me if this article was deleted. Kappa 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per WP:DP. --Usgnus 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a single, verifiable high school has been excised from wikipedia through the deletion processes in almost 2 years. While this precedent is not binding upon future AfDs (such as this one), it has established the standard that any given reader would expect to find articles about any given high school on wikipedia. Being offended that your high school is included in wikipedia is surely not a valid criterion for deletion.--Nicodemus75 20:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High schools are notable community institutions worthy of inclusion. Erechtheus 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an excellent start for an article that merits retention and can only be improved. Nominator's "explanation" seems to be a case of familiarity breeds contempt. Alansohn 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nomination was based on personal standards of importance. In contrast I find both school pages meet my personal criteria of notability for High Schools. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - schools are generally considered notable. Metamagician3000 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual. Piccadilly 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability of all schools but those in Washington are specially protected and should never even be nominated. Orangehead 16:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as for the comment by Musaabdulrashid about, User:RJHall voted to keep it, so your arguments go out the window. Orangehead 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per quote from article "Shorecrest Highschool is mainly notable because as it was created, the students elected to create a mascot did very thorough research" JoshuaZ 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a bit of akward wording that was recently added to the article. I just changed it since the mascot does not speak to notability. --TeaDrinker 15:18, 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. Sango123 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internetization[edit]

This article is about a new word that does not seem to have gained widespread usage. Additionally the page seems partly designed to promote an associated website. --RicDod 20:44, 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. Sango123 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ViWoF[edit]

Non-notable: most of the Google hits seems to refer to other things [50] (Liberatore, 2006). 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom --Shrek05 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only legit Google hits are coming from this "QxSystems" company. It's something they made up and has gotten absolutely zero mention anywhere else. SubSeven 00:22, 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. Sango123 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Halliwell Family Tree - Charmed[edit]

A family tree. Of a fictional family (Liberatore, 2006). 20:51, 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 REDIRECT to Hail to the Thief. based on recommendations from proposed Wikipedia:Notability (songs) guidelines. Madchester 17:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sail to the Moon (song)[edit]

NN, non single song--Macarion 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by "non album song"? Redirect to the album on which it appears, namely Hail to the Thief. Punkmorten 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I meant non-single --Macarion 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. Kappa 10:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing worth redirecting to the album article unless the second sentence can be sourced. Otherwise, it's pure POV. Ac@osr 11:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that's easy - see [51]. Punkmorten 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, it's the third sentence, I'm not contesting that it actually is track 3 on HTTT! Hasn't achieved anything outwith the context of the album tho' has it? Ac@osr 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought songs that aren't singles aren't supposed to be articles? --Macarion 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article does need alot of work, but the song is notable--as most Radiohead songs are--and should be kept. Also, if only singles were allowed articles than such famous songs as Stairway to Heaven and A Day in the Life would not have articles. I recommend removing the redirect to Hail to the Theif.Dhawk1964 06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above statement. Lots of songs have their own article. Orangehead 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting this song is of equal status to Stairway To Heaven or A Day In The Life? Ac@osr 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, I was just saying that a song doesn't need to be a single to be notable enough to have an article and often songs that aren't singles are more notable than single songs. I did give that impression though, sorry for the misunderstanding. Dhawk1964 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see what makes this song notable. --Macarion 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a fan favorite and is one of the most popular non-single tracks on Hail to the Theif in the album reviewing community. Dhawk1964 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not a single and the article does not provide any assertion of its notability. The (unverified) claim that the song is a favorite in the "album-reviewing community" can be made in the main Hail to the Thief article. I love Radiohead, but the song does not scream notability. --Madchester 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about I Will? That song isn't the most famous song, but it has an article that's devloped well. Dhawk1964 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, if a song is not notable, per the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (songs) guidelines, then it should not be included in Wikipedia. --Madchester 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "First, create an article on the artist. Second, create articles on each album released by the artist. Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual songs, spin the information from songs out into their own articles." I think it's fair to say that the Radiohead album articles have devolped enough and now articles for individual songs can be written. Dhawk1964 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Again review the guidelines. Even if song articles are spun-off from an album article, they still need to meet the criteria stated. I was the one who wrote expanded the "Street Spirit" and "Karma Police" articles in the first place, since they warranted notability as commercial singles. "Sail to the Moon" doesn't meet any of these general criteria in the proposed guidelines. --Madchester 17:27, 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 - CSD A7.--Andeh 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letitia Heights Ballers[edit]

Neutral, No. Written in wrong person. Specifies not to delete. The list goes on and on. Jmatt1122 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Already tagged it as such. eaolson 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted under A7/group with no notability presented (besides supposedly being "real", though that's not supported by references). Article includes lame threats not to delete, i.e. "First off. anybody delete this and i will see to it the person who did it shall have some of their articles messed up." Nooo, anything but that! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 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 Delete. Pseudoscience would need more than 391 google hits to be notable for the pseudoscience, as it doens't appear o be real science.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thornson Inertial Engine[edit]

That this device violates some basic laws of physics would not be a deletion reason in itself, but it is also completely non-notable. If someone can find s sort-of reliable source, a very small mentioning in Reactionless drive may be in place. --Pjacobi 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, google shows 391 hits. I think that is enough people that need to learn the law of conservation of momentum to justify keeping this article and, of course the category pseudophysics. pstudier 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the claim on the page is true and the IECEC actually studied the concept, it has some sort of inherent nobility. hateless 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it difficult enough to accept pseudoscience as notable, but c'mon, this concept is on the fringes even in the world of pseudoscience. Cold fusion would blow this pansy's little 391 Google hits out of the water. dryguy 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "391" is notable? LOL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Wikipedia is not a blog for every perpetual motion mechanic. Byrgenwulf 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and previous deletion recommendations. The fringes of pseudoscience are a dark and mysterious land, far removed from Encyclopedia. Anville 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 speedy keep - AfD was started by a sockpuppet of the kitten vandal and there are no serious arguments for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essex girl[edit]

Non-notable, would Encyclopædia Britannica have an article about a social classification from 10 years ago? ChickenOut 21:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Very notable, passes the Pokemon test with flying colours, remember [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. ><Richard0612 UW 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable and worthy of an article. See chav, WAGs, etc. Vickser 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good factual article, quite useful. I believe it to be notable.--Andeh 22:44, 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. Sango123 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo N-Game[edit]

Article was previously deleted via prod, recreated (so contested). Second prod concern was "article is about a non-notable conjecture, and the fact that it was subsequently proven false". See also answers.com's copy of previous version and afd of related subject matter. Procedual change of prod to afd so no 'vote' from me at this time. MartinRe 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This seems entirely non-notable to me, especially without citations. There's little context, and mostly the article sounds like original research. --FreelanceWizard 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FreelanceWizard. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I read the article and I have no idea what it's talking about. It says people thought it was a game but never explains what exactly they saw or why they would think this. Default to delete if it isn't improved. If it is, I'll look at it again. Ace of Sevens 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a huge Nintendo fan and i've never heard of it. An article about speculation from fans? Delete and protect from being re-created. TJ Spyke 03:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Combination 15:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Luvcraft 18:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncited, purely speculative material. Glad someone is cleaning this sort of thing up. --Stellmach 17:11, 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. Sango123 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nettionary[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things Vinnietheguy made up online one day – a personal dictionary of Internet slang ala Urban Dictionary. This little "gem" caught my eye while on recent changes patrol.

knoe: n, the mark on a woman's knee after giving head

On behalf of the Wikipedia AFD team, no thanks. Fails: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Missmarple 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a ban for creating Image:Greatmove flag.jpg - although I dont think that's possible :(. - Dammit 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Painfully stupid. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netsnipe has pointed to the wrong policy. (There's a tendency of editors to use "indiscriminate collection" as some sort of catch-all. It isn't.) The article is the author's own personal dictionary of slang. The applicable policy is, simply, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. Delete. Uncle G 10:22, 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 nomination withdrawn.

Joe Thomas[edit]

it's some random kid --Macarion 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC) ret nom, was just vandalism --Macarion 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have reverted the article to earlier version, about a Wisconsin Badgers football player. Fan-1967 22:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close AFD Just a real article that got vanity-ized by some kid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep now that the vandalism has been reverted. --FreelanceWizard 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ret nom --Macarion 00:36, 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 by Jkelly. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itty Bitty Kitty Titties Vs. Big Fat Cat Tats[edit]

Non-notable band, speaking with author, one of the members are on a local band through a "known" record company. I removed the speedy tag, but the band clearly does nto meet WP:BAND Wildthing61476 21:54, 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 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slanguistics[edit]

Does not appear to be useful. Slang already exists Jmatt1122 22:13, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu_Unity[edit]

Website does not meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web). BhaiSaab talk 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed and seconded.Netaji 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt's an interesting article. It just needs work and a cool head.--D-Boy 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Are interesting articles excused from notability criteria? BhaiSaab talk 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reason given in first AfD. GizzaChat © 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is an interesting website, is very popular in NRI circles and has all the good prospects for futureMustafa Bhai 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your second edit. I am certain you are a sockpuppet but of who? GizzaChat © 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence is provided that this meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:WEB. POV to information ratio alarmingly high. {{NRV}} — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting site. Notable enough. -- Karl Meier 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Then please explain how this site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Karl is just here to vote for the opposite of my opinion. BhaiSaab talk 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: BhaiSaab: Please avoid making such personal remarks, and false accusations against me. -- Karl Meier 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: lol it's not a personal remark. Can you substantiate your claim that this website is "notable enough"? BhaiSaab talk 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable website. --musicpvm 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm 24.211.193.113 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pending rewrite. I voted delete the last time this was up. However, recent events in India in which this site was blocked officially for hate speech were covered in national newspapers, which increases notability, and in my opinion causes it to meet WP:WEB. However, the article as it stands is dreadfully pov. Would be wonderful if someone reading this would clean it up. Id do it myself, but Im a sensitive soul and have got more than my share of invective from people with a certain brand of politics recently. Hornplease 06:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per statements of Karl Meier and others above. Orangehead 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge Firstly WP:WEB is a Guideline not a policy. Secondly, it states a website is notable if the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. How about the many news media who have covered the fact that the website has been banned? They are all non-trivial works, as indeed is the Indian government which cited it. Having said that the guideline also said the website should be included in the artcle about its parent organisation, hence I suggest it is merged with Bajrang Dal. --AndrewRT 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable group.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article just need clean up.Other wise a good article.Yousaf465
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was reverted and speedily kept. - Mgm|(talk) 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calamari[edit]

Someone has coined their own fashion term, "Calamari", and admits it in the article, and has differentiated it from the redirect to squid that was originally here. It has no business in terms on notability or original research. ~~Scottandrewhutchins

  • Article was vandalized. I reverted to the last correct version. - Mgm|(talk) 23:29, 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. Sango123 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toughburg[edit]

This page appears to be a significantly shorter cut-and-paste copy of Gaithersburg, Maryland, in which the creator has made modifications in support of his personal neologism. Gaithersburg, Maryland may be a "tough" city, but such information, if it be verifiable, should be in its article. We don't need a strange-sounding copy-paste about "tough bills" and whatnot. The prod was contested by the editor, which is why I've brought it up here. FreelanceWizard 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree, allow some work to be done on this page, dont jump the gun here, John and Nat — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHFedders (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 SPEEDILY DELETED as a restatement of the title. This speedy deletion doesn't prevent the later creation of an article on this subject, but this business seems to fail WP:CORP, so I wouldn't suggest it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen School[edit]

Non-notable K-8 school in Washington state; I cannot find any press coverage on it; not to be confused with the Evergreen School District, in California JChap (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable school (unless sources other than the school can be found), or possibly merge into an article about the town it is in. The creation of a wikiproject does not confer encyclopedic value to every one of its potential subjects, and WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the usual excellent reasons. —Encephalon 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 03:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. -- Koffieyahoo 07:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important to gifted education in Shoreline and the surrounding area. Kappa 10:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a non-notable primary/middle school. Erechtheus 21:52, 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. Rje 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tireder[edit]

No context; general silliness; been Speedied once before, so here 'tis. Let'er rip. Rklawton 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as reposted deleted content. Fabricationary 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of order It's my understanding that a speedied article shouldn't be speedied twice. If it's reposted, it needs to go through an XfD. Otherwise, I would have tagged it as a repost. Rklawton 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a repost of deleted content and incorrect English grammar. as a violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary as per Uncle G. I might suggest a transwiki, but it's also a neologism. --FreelanceWizard 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those are reasons for deletion. The applicable reason for deletion is that this article is a stub dictionary article that has been placed in the wrong project (for a word that probably doesn't satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria in any case) and that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You're correct. I must've missed the sentence under CSD G4 where previously speedied content needs to go through AfD if it's recreated, unless a speedy criterion applies again. In this case, the article in question is a neologism and otherwise isn't applicable for speedy; WP:WINAD, I agree, is the criterion to use. Reason for my vote changed, lesson learned and all that. :) (As a side note, the bit about "incorrect English grammar" was mostly intended as a joke.) --FreelanceWizard 10:46, 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 lack of consensus which defaults to keep. Ifnord 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lise Van Susteren[edit]

Greta Van Susteren's sister and failed candidate for Democratic nomination for US Senate, also hosted local AM radio show for a little over a year, fails WP:BIO JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Thistheman 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I was a little torn on this one because, taken as a whole, she seems to be bordering on notable. But I couldn't find a good factoid to back it up, so I'll take a pass. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears sufficiently notable to me. Candidate for senate, host of AM radio show in a large market, family connections to both her father and sister, add up to noteworthiness, even though none of these alone would make her notable.--Nicodemus75 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is well known. It would be premature to delete the article. RFD 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please hosting a radio show is notable passes bio for me Yuckfoo 23:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sum total of radio + senate bid + family connections = we need this article. --JJay 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and merge with her sister's article, as a "trivia" entry.Michael Dorosh 00:36, 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 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Protack[edit]

Current candidate for Republican nomination for US Senate in DE; unsuccessfully sought Republican nomination for Governor in 2004; honorable but unremarkable military career; no history of officeholding asserted, but he is a Republican committeeman and delegate for a subcounty Republican organization; fails WP:BIO JChap (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question If he's got the nomination, then isn't he notable? The senate is a high office, and folks might want to know a bit about the main candidates. Rklawton 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer He's a candidate for the nomination; he does not have it. WP:NOT an election guide. Candidates generally only have lasting notability if they win. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - at least until/unless he gets the nomination. Rklawton 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep His activities are newsworthy and his name regularly appears in the papers, and is the object of considerable public discussion among those interested in politics in Delaware. I would say he could be considered a "Major local political figure who receives (or received) significant press coverage," see Wikipedia:Notability (people) and certainly passes the "Google" test. I think a person that draws 5,000 votes in a major party contest, and is likely to draw as many or more in the near future, is notable enough for a short article, and the Delaware political scene is certainly affected because of his activities. stilltim 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of that is listed here. Candidacy alone does not warrant inclusion. 'Significant press coverage' means out-of-state and national press. That hasn't happened here. 5,000 votes in a 'major party contest' usually means a pretty substantial defeat. The tally for the governor's primary on the article page attests to that. --DarkAudit 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's a candidate it's political season. Try nominating if he loses the party primary. --waffle iron talk 17:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment since when did we included bios because one day they might become notable? Rklawton 18:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment He is already notable because he's a serious candidate, regardless of how well he does. Also keep in mind that 10,000 votes (total) can win a statewide election in Delaware. Finally, how many congressmen from anywhere in the country get "out-of-state and national press" coverage? Not many...but surely they are notable. stilltim 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several problems with your argument. First, there is no citation in the article that stipulates he is a "serious" candidate (whatever that is). Second, he is not a congressperson as you state. If he were already a Senator, then I wouldn't have supported his nomination for deletion. Lastly, he's not even his party's nominee for the race. He is a candidate to be a candidate. The matter at hand is should we delete him at least until he wins his party's nomination. The argument I made against the "weak keep" was that we don't keep bios to see if the person will become notable, we add bios only after the person becomes notable. If this guy doesn't get the nomination for office, then his bio is going to read "... was an "also ran" for the nomination for Senator - and I highly recommend we don't start including those folks in this encyclopedia. Otherwise, we're going to be add a lot (more) nutcases to this project. If we try to sort out who is "serious" and who isn't - that's going to be tough to verify. It'll be far easier to let the parties sort out who is a serious contender by allowing them to nominate the person to run. It's verifiable, and it won't be subject to debate. Rklawton 02:46, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Market of India[edit]

Financial data that will never be current/final. Valrith 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment An article about the Indian bond market would be nice, but I agree that this isn't the place for closing figures. Rklawton 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, I don't really see how this is terribly helpful. Parts of this table could be used as examples within an article on the Indian bond market (how it works, what the trading houses are, its history), but as it stands, it'd change too much to be useful. --FreelanceWizard 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and also inappropriate info for an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not a Bloomberg terminal). Also, I don't think a descriptive article about how the India bond market works is needed - one government bond market works pretty much like another. There would be technical differences and variations in the bond offerings, but that kind of specialist information is detail for bond traders, not an encyclopedia. An article about the history and development of the bond market in India would be fine. Bwithh 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against re-creation. Although as an article it should exist, the way it is currently present is un-encyclopedic. The data is not of any use to the encyclopedia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:09, 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 KEEP. Rje 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trank[edit]

Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia? I think it can be interesting for people involved in this art scene themselves - so I wouldn't want to remove the article from the face of the internet - but I doubt it is interesting for Wikipedia users, so maybe there is a better place than Wikipedia for it? Ignavus 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now there's already an edit conflict with the first vote, but there are more similar articles I was going to add (more detailed than the first, but same topic and level of interest, I believe..) --Ignavus 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[vote below applies to Trunk only --Ignavus 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]

  • Delete, considering it's been around for 18 months and doesn't contain much of interest outside a blurb to justify following the link. SB_Johnny | talk 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to minor artscene groups. Practically asserts un-notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep once again I must remind folks the standard for keeping is VERIFIABILTY, not NOTABILITY. Users who've been here a whopping 11 edits (That would be you Ignavus) should learn the policies to wikipedia before putting stuff up for deletion. This is yet another example of a new user with complete ignorance of policy listing something he's never heard of for deletion. "I've never heard of it, so it should be deleted" is not the way wikipedia works.  ALKIVAR™ 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above. As WP:NN explains, non-notablity, while not a core policy like verifiability (WP:V), it is the basis for a number of guidelines for article inclusion which represent consensus opinions on Wikipedia (such as WP:BIO), and can be arguably associated with official policy WP:NOT. WP:NN also explains that notablity is a controversial issue, but is frequently used as arguments for afd. Ignavus is perfectly justified to nominated these articles for deletion. While every Wikipedia user should take time to read up on policies and guidelines, its totally unnecessary and unjustified for ALIKIVAR to scold a new user like that - and on the basis of ALIKIVAR's own opinionated reading of Wikipedia guidelines as well. I would suggest that ALKIVAR read WP:BITE. Bwithh 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar. And since the "vote below applies to Trunk only," why are we talking about Trank? If you want an article to be deleted, you might want to proofread your request (yes, I'm aware that typos happen). I'd also like to point out, as others are so fond of saying, AfD is not a vote. Also, if you'd like to nominate the other articles you've listed, you should do so. As of now, the AfD template for them links to this AfD; they're separate articles, they deserve separate discussions (which will likely mirror this and every other AfD discussion). There's probably a policy on mass nominations, but I'm pretty sure this isn't how it works (please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong). --Myles Long 00:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Dhartung. If I'm reading this correctly, this is a small spinoff group that eventually returned to the fold of it's parent group. There are no claims of notability. MLA 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Alkivar. Orangehead 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - I believed it to be a bad joke by somebody. FYI, there was a time before the internet and before Windows 95 and up. People used Modems not to call an ISP to connect to a NET, but somebody elses Computer that was in most cases a private computer up for 24 hours on a designated telefon line just for the computer. That person had a software running called BBS Software that accepted incoming phone calls and provided features like Messaging (just like Email) and Upload and Download of files. Those "things" were called BBS which stands for Bulletin Board System and the PC Versions usually operated under MS DOS which was Text Based and fairly uggly. Thanks to ANSI and ANSI art and ASCII art got BBS's a much better look and touch of individuality. The Guys that did those weird type of Art (in the opinion of some folks of the after-MS DOS -> Windoof Generation) usually formed Art Groups (like the Guys that did Demos (Demo scene) and the ones that removed copy protections from games and applications (Warez scene) later the guys that ripped MP3's and Movies, something everybody should be familar with, because they are still around. Btw. ASCII and ANSI Art is also still around. There are a lot of folks out there that have vivid memories about ANSI and ASCII art, but might not remember the groups and artists that made them, but there are also still a lot of guys out there that remember very well and appreciate the fact that Information can be found about it and that it is not all forgotten. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment: the CEO of deviantART also things that Groups like SAC and and ACiD and Remorse are very much notable, but he only runs the foremost artist community on the Web, nothing notable --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the vote is about "Trank" only, remove the "Articles for deletion" template from the other articles. They link to this vote. Regardless of that is my vote I already nade for all of the groups listed above and flagged as "Articles for deletion" --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Remorse (for Trank only), at least unless someone writes a longer article about it. I'm a bit confused by this "multi-voting", as the deletion links in those articles you listed link here. I can't really say anything about Trank or Mistigris, but I think it's totally absurd that you're suggesting the removal of the articles about SAC, Remorse and ACiD. These groups are very notable considering the history of digital art. DiamonDie 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again... speedy keep. Of course this part of computer history is noteworthy. --Avatar-en 07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as per roy<sac> --Pseudo Intellectual 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ... and we will pretend for the time being that my association with Mistigris has nothing to do with this position.[reply]
  • Keep, per Alkivar. bbx 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are notable computer graphics organizations which pre-date the modern internet, worthwhile for coverage on Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 08:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Initially, when I created the minor artscene groups article, I included Trank ASCII. That was until I discovered someone had already created a Trank article. It is notable by being closely related to ascii scene legends Remorse ASCII. I could live with the Trank article being merged into the Remorse article, but honestly, adding the Afd for ACiD, Mistigris, Remorse, SAC, is just ignorant, and this opinion doesn't stem from the fact that I regularly edit these articles. --Sodium N4 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ASCII Art and all of it's groups deserve a rightful place in history as any other. To remove it would violate the purpose of even having Wikipedia. Bad move by whomever nominated this. --Conexion 17:38, 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. Sango123 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games++[edit]

Alexsa raing 217,867.Fails WP:WEB. BlueValour 23:54, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_28&oldid=1081095908"