Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 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 of the debate was keep.  Grue  12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleas and Lice[edit]

In horrible shape, and it looks like this is for a band who might be unfamiliar to many people. Unless we can fix the importance thing, or edit it a little bit, I say delete. --S-man 07:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have removed the copyvio and added tour history to establish notability criteria. This is a well-known band in the crust punk genre that I knew about even before this article, and was able to rustle up notable info on within minutes. Parsssseltongue 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. Few relevant Google results [1] and no Allmusic profile--TBCTaLk?!? 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Parasite ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat talk 07:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - given that it's written by band members we got attacked in Gdansk et cetera it certainly doesn't belong. WilyD 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOR. Not wasting time investigating an article without resources. Ste4k 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.This band has traveled all over Europe and the United States. They are a very notable crust punk band. This is another case of a Wikipedian trying to delete a topic they have no knowledge of, when it's readily available. Did any of you check to see if the band had an official website? I did, and saw that info from the article was cut-and-paste from it (I removed it). Someone needs to write an essay entitled WP:LAZY. Parsssseltongue 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't let official websites fool you into thinking a band is worthy of an article. My band had an official website detailing our discography, concerts, et cetera before we held a single rehersal and before I even learnt to play guitar. Bands such as that example have official websites all the time. WilyD 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have prior knowledge of this band and they are not a hoax. Again, I stress, if anyone before me had bothered to check the website, they would have seen their tour history, their notable releases, etc. (and that the Wiki article as originally written was copyvio). I think people have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to AfDs. Parsssseltongue 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; would change to keep if significant content were added. A series of unordered lists does not qualify, in my opinion. Also, I would like to see a WP:RS or two cited. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs work, but has impressive touring for a band from Holland [2]. Albums released on Profane Existence Records, who are marginally notable for being devoted to crust punk. Meets WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just did a very brief expansion on the article, and removed the "tour record" which was a copyvio. Referenced it instead. --Joelmills 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs work but they are notable enough. bbx 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not uninclined to change my vote based on the recent findings, but I still want to see that anyone actually wrote about them. Websites, tour listings, etc., don't really establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article is unbias and is a signed band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep: I've heard of them and I'm not a huge crust fan, so they are at least partially notable. The problem (on wikipedia at least) for them, and many other punk bands is that there is a lot of distrust and scorn for the mainstream music industry, so the vast majority of punk bands (including many that are quite notable within the punk scene) are completely off the radar of major music magazines and comentary. This causes huge problems for verifying notability within articles. Crust punk is especially prone to this, since there is absolutely no mainstream popularity for the genre. The Ungovernable Force 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, there is nothing to merge.  Grue  12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Atkin[edit]

A model on the Price is Right - does not meet WP:BIO, delete --Peta 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thao Nguyen[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO, delete --Peta 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable person who's only claim to notability is being part of a non-notable organization. Few relevant Google results[3]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alhtough, this article needs to be expanded, it has the foudation to be more than it currently seems. I would like to see what does indeed develop before we make the decision to delete it. Perhaps more of his accomplishments and contributions to Australia and the UN could be explained. I think the organizations inolved are notable, and therefore this article has the potential for becoming notable as well.--Blog Mav Rick 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In running for young Australian of the year for NSW see [4] and there have been some mentions of her name in the media. Organised the first ethnic youth film festival and addressed the UN General Assembly so she has some achievements of note and perceived as a future leader. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Youth UN is not a valid claim of notability, it is not a proper part of the UN with any weight or influence, it's just a mock debate competition so that high school kids can win a trip to Europe and do a mock debate. There were also 198 IDs on that archive that Capitalistroadster gave us and we certainly do not keep articles on players youth international sports teams or academic representative competitions like International Mathematics Olympiad etc. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Belikov Blnguyen | rant-line 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as per nom and Binguyen. No convincing indication of encyclopediac notability given by keep supporters. Not every candidate in every contest/election is notable guys. And claims of "future leader" potential is just crystalballing Bwithh 03:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being in the youth UN is not a notable achievement. --Coredesat talk 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh yeah, this is just not a notable person, and our own Nguyen right here - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete major claim to fame is as part of the Australian delegation to the United Nations. Every person whose ever been in any country's or organization's delegation does not automatically merit an encyclopedia entry. If she becomes a future leader great, we'll talk then. --Nscheffey(T/C) 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as User:Blnguyen - Motor (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blnguyen said it best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blnguyen. SM247My Talk 11:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this person is linked in the Australia section of The Weakest Link (and the link is at least several months old). If this is more than just a person with the same name, it'd suggest that someone else has a good faith opinion that the person is notable. Andjam 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there are around 200,000 people of Vietnamese etnicity in Australia, and about half have the surname Nguyen. Then half are female so 50,000. Thao would be easily on of the ten most popular female names, so there probably could be at least a thousand people with the same name. besides, being on Big Brother for everdday for 4 months isn't good enough, so an appearance in a30min TV show wouldn't do much either.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VERWP:NOR at least that much should be in advance. Ste4k 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Blnguyen. Wickethewok 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Blnguyen. (Is there an echo in here?) Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ensuing conversations here. -- Alias Flood 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing inherently notable about his position and no notability asserted for himself as an individual. BlueValour 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Directory Opus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Potter (computer programmer)[edit]

Notability no demonstrated, delete --Peta 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leipus[edit]

Does being physio to a international sports team necessarily meet WP:BIO? --Peta 00:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO or perhaps redirect. An individual working for someone notable doesn't always make the individual himself is notable. Also, only 668 relevant Google results [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Andrew Leipus" physio gets 11,400 hits. Tintin (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to think this is worth keeping. The low google result is due to the fact that most articles about him were written in Hindi. Cricket is enormous in India, and when players got injured in the build up to tournaments, he would get quoted frequently. Further, articles about him note that Leipus had a great impact on the team, its fitness, and level of play. Leipus isn't any old phsyio, he's a physio who changed much of the thinking behind the Indian cricket team. Vickser 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting quoted from the media does not always merit notability. Also, due to the fact that doctors handle the well-being and health of their patients, technically all doctors for anyone notable can have a high impact on their life, thus do we really need an article for every single doctor that has had a notable patient?--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Getting quoted frequently in the media as an expert would seem to me to pass the more notable than the average college professor test, and 11,400 google hits seems to pass the google test. I'm not saying that any doctor who's had a notable patient is himself notable, but I do believe Leipus's impact on the team and his extensive media coverage make him notable. Vickser 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge into Indian national cricket team. I don't believe his notability goes beyond the context of that organization. TedTalk/Contributions 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per Ted--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry you're right. My vote should be merge and redirect.--Joe Jklin (T C) 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Delete and merge is not a valid choice, as it violates GFDL. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How does this violate GFDL? Delete and Merge simply means to take whatever useful information is in the first article and put it into the other article, then delete the first one. I'll change my wording to be more explicit. TedTalk/Contributions 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion of the original text loses the attribution from the original edtior, thus violating GFDL and copyright. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as above Bwithh 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even read my comment above? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope! On the other hand, "Merge" does not mean cut and paste as that rarely works. It generally means a significant degree of editing down and rewriting of the text is involved. Bwithh 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough - he was one of the people who wrote some report on the Indian team's fitness - one of which lead to coach Greg Chappell sending a heated email to the board calling for captain Sourav Ganguly to be dismissed - one reason being his abject physical state - Ganguly was eventually sacked amidst board infighting, allegations of scandal, board branch-stacking, and widespread rioting in his hometown of Kolkata, railways were blocked, state government threatened not to pay taxes, passed motions in parliament etc,et c. The styou can see how big cricket is in India. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Indian national cricket team, per TedE. --Coredesat talk 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Indian national cricket team. Not enough info for single article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 06:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable enough for mine. 18,300 Google hits including verifiable sources such as Cricinfo [6] and 10 Google News hits [7] gives multiple sources of reliable information. That in turn indicates notability. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. David L Rattigan 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO criteria. Information could be moved to Indian national cricket team before close of AfD if anyone cares to.--Isotope23 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable, through involvement in newsworthy events surrounding the Indian cricket team. JPD (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Indian national cricket team which, as written, contains no mention of Leipus who asserted to be notable because of his work there. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Yonatanh 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster, this person is verifiably notable. Yamaguchi先生 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly notable. Tintin (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- certainly notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those voting delete may not completely understand the significance of Leipus' tenure as physio, during which time he oversaw acomplete transformation in the degree of fitness expected of a member o the Indian national team. This has in many ways revolutionised the way the team plays, as well as being partly reflected in its changed ranking in the world. Simply put, he's a notable person, was extremely visible for the period when he was with the national team, and emminently encyclopaedic. Note he is no longer with the team, so it does not make sufficient sense to merge him into the team page. In any case, I strongly expect that as more India- and cricket-related articles are created, someone will attempt to recreate this in the not-so distant future. Hornplease 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:BIO per "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Also, please note that WP:BIO is not a hard and fast rule - it reads "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." (emphasis not mine but in original) --Gurubrahma 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per evidence presented above. With note to nominator this is not the place to ask questions. If you aren't sure then you shouldn't be nominating for deletion, although other than putting the debate here you havn't given your opinion. Ansell 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, in this case it does. Silensor 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State University College Republicans[edit]

nn college club. Every college in the US (pretty much) has a college rebublican's club. --Pboyd04 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable club--TBCTaLk?!? 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there are just too many of these to have separate articles for, and nothing in the article indicates that they've done anything particularly notable. Herostratus 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The College Republicans article doesn't really have a place to merge it, and it is not notable itself. TedTalk/Contributions 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.--Blog Mav Rick 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ORG and advertising. SM247 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kent State. Virtually all college clubs should be in their schools article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, other than the name of the club and one sentence about them, they should not even be in the Kent State article. Alphachimp talk 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If every college club got their own page we could add another 100,000 articles =P --mboverload@ 07:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but don't merge anything except for the club's existence into the main article -- none of the events mentioned in the article seem particularly important in the context of a rather old, rather large university.--M@rēino 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Yonatanh 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable. -999 (Talk) 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable single school clubs may exist, but no evidence of notability for this one presented. -- Infrogmation 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Non-notable. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to College Republicans. Sandy 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Spaceships of EVE Online. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bantam frigate[edit]

Seems to be nn fancruft Ethii 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Letter[edit]

doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Pboyd04 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Can't Rain All the Time[edit]

I'm also nominating A New Hard Life (Hilary Duff album), as both are articles on supposedly forthcoming Hilary Duff albums that not even Duff herself has said anything about. Googling for either title only yields reuslts from Wikipedia mirrors and dubious sources, and there's no mention of one or the other at her official website. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cordiant[edit]

The pages reads like an adevert for Cordiant, even cleaned up I don't think it really has a place  Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - though questionable notability, Google does provide 3,200 hits from a variety of sources [10]; IMHO just needs a very major cleanup. ikh (talk) 18:43, 21 June 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, W.marsh 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS, no evidence of notability--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:CORP. A better google search is [11], which yields 2,600 hits. Some are job openings, but others seem to be news snippets about who is now using Cordiant Technologies. Very very marginal. TedTalk/Contributions 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy, if it were to be kept it would need serious revision as it is copyvio now [12] .--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is a copyvio, it can merit a speedy delete per CSD 8--TBCTaLk?!? 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I believe that only applies to articles created in the last 48 hours. This was created in April. It should also be noted that this article is the only contribution that the author has made.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, sorry about the misleading comment. I had assumed it was created recently as most articles that resemble the one nominated are usually deleted within days of creation.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. ---CH 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone makes a non copyvio article at the /Temp page. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please take another look at the article. The copyvio argument no longer applies, as the article is no longer a copyvio. I think the company is quite large. TruthbringerToronto 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still am not sure that this company is notable. While a google for cordiant turns up plenty of results, many are for cordiant communications group, which was one of the top advertising companies in the world at one point but is no longer in existence. Until I see some evidence that this company is notable (stock market indices,company ranking indices, etc.) I can not change my vote to keep.--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one result on Google News, other than that main results on Google aren't evidence of notability. Yonatanh 15:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary: The Game[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Pboyd04 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT, as evidenced by statements such as that it was "created by two students at Warwick University UK: Matisse Jayasuriya, Terry van Gevelt."--TBCTaLk?!? 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as silly, made up nonsense. TedTalk/Contributions 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Don't they have homework at Warwick? Bwithh 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete? Under what criteria? It may be non-notable, but it doesn't seem to be patent nonsense, a copyvio, etc.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. SM247 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NFT, don't think this is a speedy candidate, though. --Coredesat talk 04:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Comes very, very close to patent nonsense. Morgan Wick 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. You cannot just make up something and then automatically put it on Wikipedia. Bad decision to put the article on here, good decision to delete it. --S-man 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a speedy delete candidate, and not patent nonsense, and every game was made up by someone. But, since there is no evidence that anyone besides these two students has ever played this game, it fails verifiablity. If I could find an independent resource listing rules for the game, or anyone writing about playing it, I would reconsider. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice - Wikipedia not about how you waste time at school, et cetera WilyD 14:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiichan[edit]

Niche forum software, permastub; Not to be confused with Shii-chan. Kotepho 17:56, 21 June 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, W.marsh 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. --Ezeu 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira remixography[edit]

I'm also nominating List of remixes of Britney Spears songs. Per previous discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes etc.), these lists of remixes (some of which are unofficial and/or non-notable) contravene WP:NOT. Extraordinary Machine 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, textbook listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete opens the door for an unmanageable, unverifiable, ever-expanding list. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listcruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just found Madonna remixography and Spice girls remixography, and have tagged them for deletion as well. Extraordinary Machine 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as listcruft --Starionwolf 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Why exactly are these aricles for deletion? I have devoted much time and effort into keeping Madonna's remixography 100% accurate. It is a useful resource and many people ask for this. It is a full and easy to understand list. Please explain to me why it, and the rest of these pages, need to be deleted. Someone explain. Thanks.--User:BertrandJP90 on 21:22, 28 June 2006
    • Upon further inspection, the Spice Girls one seems perfectly accurate as well, and that one won't change or need updates for obvious reasons. The Shakira one however, is falling behind on updates and is poorly formatted. That one should be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.175.249 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 June 2006.
      • Sorry, the above comment was mine (BertrandJP90)
    • I think a very good point somebody raised on one of the other AFDs is that a separate list of remixes presents little context for the reader. They'd have to visit the song articles to see which of these remixes are significant (and not all of them are), and really only somebody very familiar with Madonna's discography would make immediate sense of it. So it would be more useful to include info on and discuss a song's remixes in an article for the song. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruftastic. --moof 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've spent time making sure this is accurate (getting references from DJs, etc...) and fans appreciate that...I don't think it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.70.153.216 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 June 2006.
    • Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Also, casual readers of this website should be kept in mind when contributing to articles, and not just groups who already have an interest in the subject. I'm not trying to demean your efforts, but I think these lists are more suited to a Britney Spears/Shakira/whoever wiki at Wikia or somewhere. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles like this are a valuable resource. The Madonna one is the most accurate listing of all her songs and remixes available on the internet and I reference it almost daily. I don't understand what sort of rule it is breaking that people want it deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minusthesnake (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2006.
  • Comment How is this an indiscriminate source of information? Anyways, how does wikia work? What's the difference? Maybe we could reach a compromise. You could probably argue these points to two thirds of the articles here anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.175.249 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 June 2006.
    • WP:NOT states that Wikipedia articles are not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Wikia has wikis on lots of different topics, and they allow a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in an encyclopedia. I think a useful compromise for other readers would be to list and discuss the most notable remixes in the song articles rather than a context-less list. Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of this is that fans have a FULL list to reference and update with any new finds or corrections. Anyways, I'll move it to wikia if someone explains how that works. I looked at it and it seems I have to apply for something?
  • Keep. 72.130.198.232 08:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Discography articles are enough; we don't need additional remixography articles for every artist. --Musicpvm 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this will be deleted. Can anyone suggest other similar places I can keep this? I don't mind removing it from here, but I want to keep this up somewhere, as I worked very hard on it, and many people from fan communities find this very useful. If it doesn't fit into the wikipedia, where does it fit? -BertrandJP90
    • If you want to you could set up a Madonna wiki at Wikia, and people from the fan communities could contribute to it (as well as other Madonnna-related topics that may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, such as her album tracks) there. Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. — Tapir Terrific 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trae Lewis[edit]

Candidate for Democratic party state central committee; no other offices; not sufficiently notable NawlinWiki 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well, was also a candidate for a state legislative race, but withdrew. A blog that is the only reference in the article. No reliable sources used, not up to the standards of WP:BIO. GRBerry 01:27, 22 June 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, W.marsh 01:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CSD A7 and/or G1 - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News Team Channel 5[edit]

nn group. There are probably a hundred of these across the US. Pboyd04 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG. Also, as mentioned by nom, there are hundred of "news team channel 5"'s across the US due to the fact that channels and staff differ depending on region and television company--TBCTaLk?!? 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the names listed in the article, I'll have to say Speedy delete per CSD G1. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one amongst, betwixt and amidst a sea of other news channels.--Blog Mav Rick 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be merged into whatever TV station this actually belongs to... but the article doesn't state which station it belongs to. So, delete. --Elkman 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with this, the best of my searching abilities couldn't find proof that this actually exists. Also, fails WP:ORG. Yanksox (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't even sound like a real television station's news team (note that all the names are male). --Metropolitan90 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCycleAmerica[edit]

Non-notable website: Google returns circa 500 hits for the organization's name and only 21 for the parent organization (which has no content on its website). Nothing links to this article. Website has not, as far as I can see, received any significant media or foundation attention. Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:44, 21 June 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, W.marsh 01:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 5,107,137 [14]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It is simply too young and they haven't made a notable impact. I hope that changes, but not just yet. TedTalk/Contributions 02:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for failing WP:WEB Alphachimp talk 06:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish this site well on achieving notability. Until then delete. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Freecycle Network. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whoa! This is tricky stuff. Freecycle Network has and deserves an article. AFAIK it doesn't have or need much in the way of a central website. It is basically a meme that self-propagates through people setting up Yahoo Groups, using a suggested set of boilerplate rules. I'm completely baffled as to what the relationship is between FreeCycleAmerica/FreeCycleEarth and Freecycle Network. That needs to be clarified. If it's a non-notable little group using a similar name, then it should be deleted. If it's a splinter group from Freecycle Network, it should redirect to Freecycle Network and a line or two about them should be added to Freecycle Network. P. S. I occasionally participate in the local FreeCycle. It's a Good Thing... although I must say it's a little bit freaky to give your name/address/phone to total strangers so they can drive to your house and pick up stuff. P. P. S. As Bob Blue once said, "Let's save the world... and use it again!" Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 20:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Williams[edit]

  • Seems not notable enough to have an individual page dedicated to this man. I suggest a merge or deletion -- Ethii 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Possibly also redirect to Tracey Temple, his girlfriend--TBCTaLk?!? 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable former boyfriend of the diary secretary of the First Secretary of State. Even the obligatory affair between the latter two does not save this one. TedTalk/Contributions 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quite frankly this is so NN it doesn't even merit a merge. Alphachimp talk 06:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this bit player into the Tracey Temple or John Prescott article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Nscheffey. David L Rattigan 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, falls well short of WP:BIO unless you take a very liberal reading of "involvment in newsworthy events".--Isotope23 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnotable. Green caterpillar 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Inner Earth 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is notable, because of the nature of the comments that he has given with regard to this heavily publicized controversy. Comeon, guys, apply the same yard stick to all celebrities -- R7 2 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 of the debate was delete as copyright violation – Gurch 12:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Hickey[edit]

Having a famous child does not automatically make an individual notable, and Carey's mother isn't notable outside of her association with Carey (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Carey, which resulted in a delete). Extraordinary Machine 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Roy Carey. Apologies. Extraordinary Machine 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, who's your cousin? --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Rather not say... I'll go and start my article right now. You'll be able to find it on WP:AfD --Alphachimp talk 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Coredesat. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some kind of re-written material into Mariah Carey, but it's kind of a mess. Hard to tell what's relevent and what's just gossip. Kuru talk 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. — Deckiller 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmm, I've just realised this is actually a copyvio from [15]. I should have done earlier, since the article on her father was also a copyvio (from the same website). Extraordinary Machine 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Good grief. Looks like it has been that way since day one, so we can't revert it to non-copyvio text. I only see one sentenace that has been added as new content and that won't stand on its own. Will blank for now. Kuru talk 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per copyright violation, Extraordinary Machine and Kuru. Merge useful text to pop/ R&B singer Mariah Carey. I see the copy violation too. The useful text is in the article's history if anyone wants to merge anything. --Starionwolf 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack, I misread the comments above. I need coffee. --Starionwolf 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Zero[edit]

Contested prod. —EdGl 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable festival; few Google results [16]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, failing WP:ORG. You can also go with copyright violation, since we only have the editor's comment that they (s)he has permission. TedTalk/Contributions 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong delete per CSD-A8 as possible copyvio, fails WP:ORG. There is no evidence the editor has permission to post this, and it definitely reads like it was copied and pasted from somewhere. --Coredesat talk 04:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyvio? From which site? Though it may seem like copyvio, without any actual evidence the above article doesn't fall under CSD-A8--TBCTaLk?!? 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, needs secondary sources for verifiability. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nscheffey --Alphachimp talk 07:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no offense, but try googling High Zero Festival and you'll get a lot more hits. Also I apologize for the direct quoting of the other website, it has been changed. There is no longer any direct quoting from the High Zero website. Rosehammer 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umbranet[edit]

I see no indication that this meets WP:WEB or is in any way important. Note that while it does get numerous google hits, as an IRC many of these hits are not helpful to determining notability. Was prodded a good while back, but the tag was removed. Indrian 14:23, 21 June 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, W.marsh 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 777,214[17]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Umbranet returns 145 unique google hits [18].--Fuhghettaboutit 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are many specialized IRC networks with articles on Wikipedia (DeltaAnime, Enter The Game, etc). This could be valuable information to someone trying to communicate with the bands listed, or just trying to find a music oriented IRC network. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, a resource to communicate with those bands would be a personal website. I don't think that their Wikipedia page should be that website. --Alphachimp talk 07:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I was saying was that if it were true that these bands regularly were active on Umbranet, that would at least deserve mention in their articles. Even if that turns out to be untrue or unverifiable, how many IRC networks are you going to put up for deletion? Should Enter The Game, Blitzed, and ChatAutism be co-nominated? Is there some policy, proposed or otherwise, to deal with IRC networks that you could point me towards? --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Cuts[edit]

Vanity, unverified, and really a non-notable travel agency. Extremely Strong Delete Ardenn 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. What the wha??? This is a Canada-wide travel agency that has expanded beyond locations at university campuses. There are even offices overseas (I recall there is one in London, assuming it's still there). Certainly satisfies the criteria of WP:CORP. I fail to see the vanity, and the basis of non-notability mystifies me. Agent 86 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subsidiary of the Canadian Federation of Students, which is the largest student organization in Canada. Also, it has over 256,000 Google results [19]. Perhaps also merge to Canadian Federation of Students instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - I changed my vote from rewrite to merge. It does seem that this would be better suited to be part of the CFS article - pm_shef 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The only outside references I could find were for the lawsuit (which counts, but is not enough). All other relevant hits appeared to be ads through various colleges and so hard to filter out. TedTalk/Contributions 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have cleaned it up. It is a notable service to students. It has 50 locations. There is some history to it. This article is not advertising. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many travel agencies have multiple locations, that doesn't make them notable. Ardenn 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the issue would be quickly settled, then, if "non-notability" were an accepted grounds for deletion. But it isn't, not matter how much some deletionists like to bandy it about as if it were. Now that the article is cleaned up and linked from the CFS article, Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is grounds for deletion. No personal attacks. Ardenn 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not intend to attack you personally, and do not believe that that I have. Let me clarify that I am not calling you a deletionsist. Please identify where in Wikipedia's deletion policy non-notability is a grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability." Ground Zero | t 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canadian Federation of Students. Not notable for its own article Bwithh 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to satisfy WP:CORP. Yanksox (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CORP is not policy. Ardenn 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither is WP:NOTABLE, a basis on which you nominated this for deletion. The only binding policy which your nomination alludes to is WP:V, and the facts in the article are verifiable. Agent 86 03:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • When one cites another source, they are not claiming it to be an all knowing source. The person is citing it as a reason to keep or delete. Yanksox (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article satifies wikipedia NPOV guidelines and WP:CORP as well all information is factual and verified Dr sean chronic RSX 03:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to satisfy WP:CORP which is not policy but does not need to be. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies WP:CORP, information is verifiable per WP:V. --Coredesat talk 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have bought plane tickets there. TruthbringerToronto 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large, important and verifiable corporation, and the lawsuits make the article a lot more informative than most WP:CORP violators. --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Definitely notable, doesn't read as vanity at all, and easy to verify. --Ckatz 08:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Although it doesn't look like a vanity page to me, I can't see anything particularly notable about it. Blaise Joshua 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep possible It is a pretty prominent chain, as far as I can tell here in Vancouver -- multiple locations in a single city, and one of the most well-known student discount travel agencies in Canada. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-written, verifiable, nationally known. Kirjtc2 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real, Verified, Notable, Yadda, Yadda WilyD 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The largest student travel company in Canada is notable. BoojiBoy 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Easily verifiable -- just pick up a phone book in any major Canadian city -- and certainly notable. 23skidoo 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep regardless of nominator's intentions. --Arnzy (whats up?) 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll occasionally suggest that an article be deleted on notability grounds (while notability isn't usually a grounds for deletion, sometimes things are worth deleting on common sense grounds), but seriously... the subject of the article is decades old, involved in a decently high-profile lawsuit, significantly impacts the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands, and serves as an useful illustrator of a couple of things mentioned in other Wikipedia articles (hence the wikilinks). Keep it around. Captainktainer * Talk 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A travel agency for Canadian students? It's probably pretty notable, at least in Canada (However, not judging fully on notability). Green caterpillar 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep. This operation is on or near pretty well every campus in Canada, including campuses such as the University of New Brunswick which are CASA schools (i.e. not members of CFS). - Jord 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable. I've used it before myself, and I actually just drove by one a couple hours ago that I hadn't seen before. OzLawyer 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Warriors (band)[edit]

Fails WP:Music. Curiously, their website link defaults to an NBA site (at the time of writing anyway). BlueValour 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I fixed that, sorry, but they are a real band, they have 2 cd realeses and a "redux" available in stores and they are singed to a fair size label, Eulogy Recordings, they usually handle bands with this kind of sound. Avenged Evanfold 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thought id add they have a page on allmusic.com and a page for all three releases. Avenged Evanfold 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable group, failing WP:MUSIC. Their label should probably be deleted as well as non-notable, but that's another story. TedTalk/Contributions 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (without question) (creator) Are you kidding? I just went through hell last month to get Cancer Bats to be kept. I think I know a little about what makes a notable band. They have 2 cds in stores, do national tours and have an allmusic entry. Don't mess around. Avenged Evanfold 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for touring info present on their myspace profile, and for being on Eulogy Recordings. But needs to be written, entire first part of article is from their allmusic bio [20]. --Joelmills 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "national tour" is a tour of [non-notable] clubs, which really isn't a national tour. Eulogy Recordings really should be deleted as well. At best, it is marginally notable -- which is not enough to carry the band. Keeping bands of this level of notability opens the door to every band that has ever spent a summer playing at clubs and has a local recording studio pressing CDs. TedTalk/Contributions 03:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC). (Added [] TedTalk/Contributions 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment - I agree they are marginal in their notability, but I still think they squeak by. A little more info, their album has been released by a German record company [21], and according to the Ventura County Reporter [22], Eulogy Recordings is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers, and the band is headlining some shows at fair sized (400 seat) venues. If you google "the warriors" + Tehachapi, you'll find a lot of independent music websites that talk about this band. --Joelmills 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Maybe the German one is affiliated somehow but according to Eulogy, Thw Warriors are still with them [23].
  • A tour of clubs isn't actually a tour now? That's new. Keep, by the way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Notability is marginal at best. --Coredesat talk 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What is the point of having a list of all the record labels if they arent going to have functional links? And if a band has released multiple cds that are sold throughout the US and in Canada (or at least Toronto) doesnt that make then at least a little notable? 1 more thing: remember this isnt a vote, its a debate, quality over quantity of argument. Avenged Evanfold 05:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'm convinced of this band's notability and verifiability. Despite being negative, reviews are reviews, so Keep. --Coredesat talk 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete needs secondary sources. Any published reviews or articles about the band would sway me to a keep. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, when I search The Warriors + Beyond the Noise I get a few reviews, unfortunatly they are all either negative or neutral. The reviewers believe they have created this music for hardcore kids to start fights at shows. While that may not appeal to many people I still think that band is notable to keep. I just dont know if putting up negative reviews is appropriate, or even where I'd fit them in. Avenged Evanfold 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Negative reviews are still reviews, I'm now satisfied this band is verifiable enough for a keep.--Nscheffey(T/C) 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. National tour, allmusic.com page, releases on notable label... some of you don't seem to really get the music business as it is today, and shouldn't be putting music articles up for deletion. Parsssseltongue 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - non-notable club. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Club of Western Michigan University[edit]

About local college computer club, gets 70 hits on google, fails to meet organization notability requirements. Burgwerworldz 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable club--TBCTaLk?!? 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clubs wthin universities and colleges are not notable. BlueValour 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mike (T C) 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability, mere student club. SM247 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a bullet point in the Western Michigan University article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's such a great idea. I go to this school, and there are hundreds of clubs there, this may not even be in the top 50 of clubs at Western, from my experience. --Burgwerworldz 09:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at normal speeds and concur with Burgwerworldz... Universities usually have hundreds of clubs and there is no reason to list them all in the Uni article.--Isotope23 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Klein (Prof.)[edit]

Article doesn't assert any notability as professor, other than being a department chair at a small college NawlinWiki 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only 690 relevant Google results [24]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a professor he has published therefore is notable. Mike (TC) 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PROF. Bwithh 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False berry[edit]

AFD only posted on the article, not properly included on the AFD page. Listing it here for proper debate. Elkman 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Talk:False berry contains some debate about deleting False berry, but it wasn't properly included in this AFD.)

  • Keep. This article provides information about False Berries, as well as organizing all false berry bearing plants on the same page Cliffb 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although brief, the article is informative--more so than many Wiki articles. andersonpd 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons stated above. SB Johnny 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. --Janke | Talk 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it's a valid botanical term. If this is wrong, or a hoax, maybe a botanist can tell us. --Elkman 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comment. Mike (T C) 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep A poorly researched afd call. A google books text search shows several authoritative sources using this term http://books.google.com/books?q=%22false+berry%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Bwithh 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep "berry: A simple fruit with single or multiple carpels having a fleshy pericarp with no accessory parts (a true berry) or with accessory parts (a false berry)." from RE Gough (1993). Glossary of Vital Terms for the Home Gardener. Haworth Press, Inc. TedTalk/Contributions 03:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep due to poorly-researched AfD nomination. --Coredesat talk 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid term and informative article. --Musicpvm 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep lack of proper AfD suggests not a serious nom. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavenger[edit]

Completely an advertisement, through and through, in addition to non-notability. AdamBiswanger1 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist design[edit]

Stub that never got expanded; I'm not sure this is a credible concept. Is there really a distinct "feminist" school of design (aside from there being 2 articles about it)? Delete. Catamorphism 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. --Blog Mav Rick 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete half the time I can't tell if this arch-feminist stuff is satire or not. Garden design? Opabinia regalis 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a mention in the design methods article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. This could be expanded and placed into a larger article on sex outlook differences and would be very nice. As it is, there is simply not enough for a stand-alone article. TedTalk/Contributions 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Madchester 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda Fan Community[edit]

Forumcruft, fancruft, lots of nn people, linkspam. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - History is something I see on Wikipedia all the time. Why discriminate what kind of history we're looking at? That's ridiculous. Pissy people who don't like the way the page was written simply need to add their own little piece, or talk to the people who DID make it and talk to thema bout it. You people who want to delete it are people who think you matter more than you really do. Just because it's new doesn't mean you have ANY right to try and squash it down. Go find better things to do if you're bored, please. 68.228.73.35 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first and second edits. Scepia 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post on this page anymore. You're just helping ensure that this page will be deleted. kthx. --Major Organ 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a page about fan forums. And the fans who populate them. Can't get much less encyclopedic than that. Opabinia regalis 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - documenting the history of one of the biggest fan communities, give it some time to progress into something better please. We're still determining the format and structure. --TSA 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Documenting a history on our own constitutes Original research, and isn't really our place. We need to let journalists and historians document the events, and then we synthesize their documentation into a summary. Since there's no basis of journalism or historical works about the Zelda fan community, there's no possible way we can do that with this article.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a page about webforums, but instead describes the broad collection of sites and other mediums that the Zelda fan community exists in. In fact, the only times forums were mentioned was in addition to another, more relevant fact. I admit the article is rather new and underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion, but instead renovation. There is currently some dialogue within the talk page to figure out what needs to be done. If you guys feel the article contains certain violations, such as linkspam, those can be dealt with for sure, but the article itself serves a legitimate purpose. --Major Organ 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, note that virtually all of the above user's edits have been on the Legend of Zelda Fan Community article as well as on this AfD--TBCTaLk?!? 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you've read the policies, you said "but instead describes the broad collection of sites" well

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information + Wikipedia is not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories., sorry.--Andeh 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I never stated it was a list of sites, but rather the history of an expansive community (or will be). As stated elsewhere, we're discussing how to rework the article in order to include notable events and moments in the history of the community instead of giving a summary of large sites to decrease the chance of spam. I also believe it is a notable enough community to pass the "indiscriminate collection of information" test. There are multiple Star Wars fan articles, and Zelda is notable enough for atleast a general overview. We will try and work on making it more encyclopedic. We just the time. --Major Organ 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users 4th edit, this edit being the first in 2006.--Andeh 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. This will lead to articles about the fan communities of every video game, musician, actor, television show, movie, etc etc. --Musicpvm 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hugely original research, impossible to document with verifiable sources as to what are important/notable events, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article needs some work, but its aim is to document a huge fandom that has been around for 20 years, of one of the biggest video game series of all time. Lysia 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users 2nd edit, 1st edit was on talk page of this articles talk page.--Andeh 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I have followed the Zelda articles and their discussion for a long time. I quote from the announcement at the top of this page: You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. I have been in the online Zelda community since 1999, I have followed the series since the very first game, and have run a site of my own since 2001, therefore I feel I have a right to state an opinion here. Lysia 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible merge to Legend of Zelda, if any NPOV, verifiable info can be salvaged. Large, serious, prolific, and unique fan communities may warrant mention in the main article on their topic, but they do not need their own article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I essentially concur with Night Gyr's reasoning above.--Isotope23 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the article consists of POV, fancruft and original research - when you remove that, I believe the article reads The. WilyD 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too bad if there's original research and blabla, it's the only way to document something like this, which is most certainly a valid entry. Hyrule 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for admitting that it's original research, and needs to be deleted. Your contribution is appreciated. WilyD 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somebody used the Wikipedia is not a keeper of indiscriminate information argument. I read it over, and nowhere does it say "history" is unacceptable. I find that argument rather weak as the own definition does not specifically say "history". Just to point out - a hoax about a fake video game The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga has survived a AfD, and I swear that has less relevance than the history of one of the biggest fan communities on the internet. It is obvious the people voting for deletion are 1) Biased against this article because they are non-fans or 2)Believe fan works have absolutely no merit in the referential realm to warrant an entry in this site. There is an extensive history of Star Wars fan culture page, even more specific down to categories of works. The Legend of Zelda fan community is a phenomenom and a pop-culture icon status, not just a blantant advertising article which has no profound meaning. I concede the current version is not very reflective of that, but if this article was given more time to develop into something better, I believe the article would have better standing on this site. Sometimes I feel Wiki is more of an oligarchy because there seems to be a faction who decides what stays and what goes, especially in the Zelda articles, and it baffles me as to the logic sometimes. Not to be too self-righteous and full of myself, but how the hell did a Zelda hoax The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga remain and the article somebody made for GANNON-BANNED was deleted? The latter has more impact and presence and importance in the realm of Zelda than the hoax. Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I feel part of these AfD are personal grudges against me, whic is totally unprofessional and crap. Again, my argument - I do not get how the history of one of the biggest fan communities, not just any community, does not count as suitable material for this site. We can provide original research without a POV, and we can provide published citations from credible sources if you give us time. You are judging this article on its infancy, when the future version will turn out to meet Wiki's standards. But you are resolving this article to a Catch 22 - there is no way it can start off perfect and totally conforming to Wiki's standards - it needs time to get to that point. I never got the AfD after such a short time. Wiki's guidelines need to be ammended to either have AfSP, or AfD after a timeframe of significance to allow the article suitable time to develop into a proper Wiki article. But I'm sure this will get deleted. Perhaps it will be put at a more deserving place than Wiki. --TSA 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if this does get deleted, perhaps Zeldawiki would welcome your contributions TSA. You could always transwiki this over there before the close of AfD if you are concerned this is going to be deleted from Wikipedia. As for The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga, I'm not familiar enough with this particular case, but I know in some instances, hoaxes have been kept because they were so pervasive that they become notable simply for being a hoax. Again, I don't know enough about the specifics of The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga to say if this was the reasoing for keep opinions on that particular AfD. That article could use a rewrite though.--Isotope23 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, and move to a better title. A well-documented and detailed discussion of Zelda fan sites on the web is a notable topic worthy of inclusion, as quite a few of them have been notable in their own right, pulling in millions of hits, as well as their interaction. They were more important and centralized in the earlier days and are an interesting aspect of the early web. Finally, no one around is more qualified to document this stuff than TSA. I don't agree with everything TSA says, here or elsewhere, but I think this is an important topic. Deco 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amending my comments: TSA didn't actually do most of the writing in this article, didn't mean to convey that, but he does review it regularly. Also, I think this article is a great place to merge articles about Zelda websites that aren't notable enough on their own. I'd suggest "merge into The Legend of Zelda series", but it's just too large a topic for adequate coverage in the space of that page. Deco 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as this is an important subject that many surely care about. I don't have much knowledge of the history of the fan community, so this is useful, and it is not a collection of facts, but rather a helpful page with good info. Scepia 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:TheJC and User:Musicpvm. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all similar comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheJC and nominator --Starionwolf 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per original nomination. With regards to various arguments that it's "interesting," see WP:INTEREST. — Mike • 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - entirely unreferenced, and not particularly notable. For pretty much every game or franchise there's some sort of fandom out there; the real question is whether it's sizable and active enough to take note of. This doesn't appear to be the case for Zelda, judging by the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wallbank[edit]

About local journalist, appears to have be written by subject, possibly violation of WP:VAIN. Burgwerworldz 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, also appears to fail WP:BIO. Yanksox (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete makes no assertion of notability, and reads like a poorly written resume. WilyD 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it might fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Starionwolf 03:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because an article needs to be cleaned up is no reason to delete it. I may be the minority here, but if we have such an expansive Wiki section on trivial Star Wars characters and Warcraft slogans, it seems we can include state capitol journalists. If the article needs to be cleaned up, then please instruct the article's originator, CountVonBob, on how best to do so. As to Burgwerworld's point, I don't think statements like that should be made unsourced. tdslappy 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I think this meets Speedy A7 since I don't see anything that even asserts notability, but others may disagree. Eluchil404 19:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The prod-cleaning admin can also contest the deletion, so the procedural argument is moot, yet the rest of the comments stand. Titoxd(?!?) 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of Sabotage[edit]

It was on Prod that ended today. There are quite a lot of google hits at least for the sculpture in Australia. I think it should go through Afd. Voting Neutral for now abakharev 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete and close, no need for AfD if prod was uncontested for five days. Incoherent anyway. SM247 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close, as if the prod was uncontested for five days, the article should have been deleted. Also, the sculpture is notable, but its notability doesn't transfer to the article's subject. --Coredesat talk 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable info to H. R. Giger --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Omniplex 09:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasif Ijlal[edit]

Investment banker, but nothing notable that I can see from this article NawlinWiki 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 seems a clear A7 to me. His published articles may as well be powerpoint slides. or notes for powerpoint slides. Bwithh 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above -Drdisque 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Durrance[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion by Dipics, but creator Iknothetrth objected. I'm bringing the discussion to AFD as suggested. No vote on my part. Roy A.A. 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: VAnity page. --Ragib 03:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nonnotable, vanity. ---Charles 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you Remove this Page you might aswell remove the other Wind-Up Artist Pages. --Iknothetrth 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhat does it take to Prove notability? He was in One Of the Top Christian Bands, The Band Broke up & now He is Solo. Google Him up, is that enough notability? Big Dismal on VH1--Iknothetrth 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't vote twice. If you want to know what it takes to prove notability, see WP:MUSIC. Morgan Wick 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've removed the duplicate "vote". --Coredesat talk 06:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, per WP:MUSIC and per WP:VAIN. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to Notability for Music The Artist"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable....." Eric Durrance was in "Big Dismal" one of the Major Christian Bands. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"... Big Dismal's Music was in radio Stations Nationwide, Just because the band Split and The Lead singer decided to continue a solo career does not make him loose his notability. --Iknothetrth 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events Sponsored by Michigan State University Residence Halls Association[edit]

A listing of events sponsored by a college club. I find it hard that the club itself is notable, but before I work with that, I'd like to see if this is relevant. Burgwerworldz 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasim Yousaf[edit]

Non notable author, vanity page (possibly created by subject himself. --Ragib 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: NN author's vanity page --Ragib 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nasim, and kindest regards to the "Pakistan Commercial Exporters of Towels Association" hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete due to copyvio concerns. Can be re-written under a different name as suggested. --Ezeu 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah State Bar[edit]

Delete. Essay about history of Utah state law. Also obvious copyvio, though I cannot find the source online. Generally UE. An article about Utah law is possible, though we don't have articles on any state's law/bar association. In any event, this one's not it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, appears to be a possible copyvio, the creator created all the text perfectly in one post, that seems rather odd. Prehaps a very toned down version could find a home around here. Yanksox (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be copyvio. Reads like WP:OR. --Coredesat talk 04:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice as copyvio unless the author steps forward and releases it under the GDFL. If he does, strong keep: the subject is worthy of an article, and this text could be made encyclopedic with light editing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyright holder is obviously the state of Utah and/or one of its administrative subdivisions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be; it could also have been prepared for a bar association publication or magazine. If this is the case, republication rights probably are still held by the author, and if the author is the uploader, it wold be fine. We probably ought to identify, on a state by state basis, which states claim copyright in official publications as well. I know Indiana does not. Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Poss. copyvio. State goverment copyright law varies. If it could be rewritten, sourced and such Keep Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think a state bar association deserves its own article, but there should definitely be a Law of Utah article concerning how Utah's laws compare and contrast with other states.--M@rēino 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Rename into Utah State Bar Association, which is an actual notable organization. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff this can be written or text is released as GFDL. Yamaguchi先生 08:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Rename A state bar association ougth to bne notable. The presetn article has too much on the last 25 years and not enough on earlier history. Peterkingiron 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 07:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CORES & COPS[edit]

College club, seems to be in violation of WP:ORG. Burgwerworldz 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skip's Hamburgers[edit]

Seems to serve no encyclopedic purpose. Article promotes its subject without assertion of notability. - Richardcavell 03:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop alert[edit]

I do not know if this article has any merit as a distinct topic, but in its current form it serves only as an advertisement for www.superalerts.com, which a little investigation reveals, shares the same address as the software company (WWWSoftware) owned by the author of this article. If the topic has any merit, the spam can be deleted, and the article redirected or merged somewhere else. As it stands, it is worthless. Charles 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Wharf[edit]

Was on Prod as Notability not established. I think it should go through afd. Vote Neutral for now abakharev 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability established. --Coredesat talk 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Very few recording studios deserve their own article IMO and this is certainly not one of them, as the studio itself is unremarkable. I had added the PROD tag but in retrospect that was probably incorrect, my mistake. -Big Smooth 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability and importance is established. --Starionwolf 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. —Hanuman Das 17:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Kurt Wegner[edit]

No assertion of notability - getting a PhD in a scientific field doesn't automatically make you notable. Cyde↔Weys 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, lack of notability. Appears to have all of four papers in the field (in English at least), none with wide impact. (Kind of interesting though.) Opabinia regalis 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the JCIM and the QSAR & Combinatorial Science journal have a high impact in the field of cheminformatics. Although, I agree, that the impact compared to Nature and Science is much lower;-) Again, feel free to delete the article. JKW 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The CV on his homepage lists 11 publications, but I dont see evidence of notability as a researcher. Postdocs are typically not notable. Kusma (討論) 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, we do not need an article about every PhD holder. --WinHunter (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, again Delete JKW 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, getting a PhD doesn't make you notable. --Coredesat talk 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not-Delete. Is being an administrator of a software project: JOELib notable? If not, then Delete. JKW 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Created by User:Joerg Kurt Wegner ~ trialsanderrors 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete, creator/subject requests deletion. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go ahead ... I am a subject ... wow that is extremely nonpersonal ... welcome in the electronic age;-) Sorry, causing discussions. JKW 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was gonna say object, but that doesn't sound any better. But thanks again, too many "subjects" cling to their self-created articles like their livelihood depends on it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Gazzara[edit]

Was on Prod due to conserns of notability. I think he should go through AfD. Voting neutral for now abakharev 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - being on TV for 30 seconds does not constitute notability. -Drdisque 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Being in the Top 32 on American Idol just doesn't cut it by itself. TedTalk/Contributions 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, Semi-finalist of a reality show is not notable enough. --WinHunter (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Starionwolf 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Jones (historian)[edit]

delete - No valid claim of notability -Drdisque 03:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Forbsey 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing (Newfoundland and Labrador)[edit]

This is Wikipedia, not Map Quest. We're not a travel guide. Helicoptor 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. --Metropolitan90 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Not patent nonsense, just nonsense. --Coredesat talk 04:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Voortle 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cute, but not really notable. Maybe if Nothing were something, we could include it. TedTalk/Contributions 04:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothingify or BJify ~ trialsanderrors
  • The article appears to be about the gaps in a particular route on a partiular route planner. "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" is indeed the most apposite description. Certainly the article cites no sources indicating that these gaps have been the subject of significant, or indeed any, discussion in secondary sources. Contrast this with here be dragons. Delete. Uncle G 13:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not even sure what the article's trying to get at here. Kirjtc2 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)--Optichan 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "We're on a road to nowhere / Come on inside / Takin' that ride to nowhere / We'll take that ride. . . " Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although Nothing sounds like it'd be a city in Newfoundland, as far as I can tell, it ain't. I'll change my vote if someone can find a reference to the town of Nothing, NFLD. WilyD 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way to tell from what's written here if this is supposed to be a reference to a town or a region -- both of which would be notable enough to warrant articles. As far as I am aware, there's nothing in NFLD by this name. I too will be willing to change my vote if someone revises this article enough so that readers can tell what it's trying to say. 23skidoo 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I don't know if it helps but I wikilinked some of the routes mentioned. In fact NL Highway 1 ends in "Nothing" per WP, and if you go to Google Maps, there is a Sugar Loaf Rd connecting the end of Highway 1 with the Atlantic. That does not shed any light on what the two Nothings are, but at least we know now it's an accurate itinerary. ~ trialsanderrors 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's about nothing. --Optichan 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Also look at history of Newfoundland and Labrador Highway 1. --Tivedshambo (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible nonsense. --Starionwolf 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds more like a software bug than an actual geographic feature. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pretty likely. There used to be a "Delete, New Brunswick" on Google Maps (over a trailer park, no less - some comment on social status? :)) Kirjtc2 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually if you Google-map St. John's, NL, you'll see that NL1 ends in "nothing", then connects with Sugar Loaf Rd, which also ends in "nothing" just before it hits the Atlantic. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. —Hanuman Das 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be a hoax, on the whole, pretty dry article. --Sunholm(talk) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AKANOC Solutions Group Inc[edit]

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Reads as an advertisement. Prod removed without comment Gwernol 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whats wrong with the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreix (talk • contribs) .

Its about a non-notable company that fails the WP:CORP guidelines. It reads as an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. It has no sources so is unverifiable. Gwernol 04:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, surely such a dramatically successful corporation can afford some proper ad space? SM247 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:N and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable and a copyright violation from [28] (direct cut and paste of large blocks of text) and strangely enough, from here as well. I considered whether these could be copies of the article's text but, for instance, the first I listed says "copyright 2002-2006". --Fuhghettaboutit 05:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you have to tell us you are a "leading provider" that offers "world-class" services, you ain't notable enough. Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America Deceived[edit]

  • Delete the book does not appear to be notable. The author is a red link, a previous version of the article states: The book is baned on Amazon.com [29] with the only "source" being a search into Amazon not resulting in finding the book. So, this book is not listed on amazon.com...another previous version had Craigslist as a "source" for a book review. [30] and now there is a review from some site called "Shvoong" (which I also don't think is a reliable source.) Jersey Devil 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, not verifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as verifiably not-notable. We need go no further than to look at the publisher, IUniverse (their website), and note that they are purely a vanity publishing house.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. IUniverse is a vanity press. As expected, it is not in any of the libraries I checked, including the Library of Congress. TedTalk/Contributions 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria:
Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

This this book is evidently more notable than an "average cookbook or programmers manual", easly proven by this link and this link, makes the book a speedy keep by wikipedia guidlines. --Striver 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's exactly why they are not-notable. IUniverse, as I noted above, and posted a link so you can check yourself, is a vanity press, i.e., you can go there tomorrow and have anything you'd like published if you pay them for it. Posting two links to IUniverse's listing of the book, thus, implies no notability whatever.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that the book is not included in a "couple dozen of libraries" worldwide? --Striver 11:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat says it's in NO libraries worldwide [31] -- at least, those that are accessible by Worldcat, which includes the freakin' Library of Congress. --Calton | Talk 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a vanity-press (or "print-on-demand", to use the euphemism) publication is strong evidence that a book is LESS notable than an "average cookbook or programmers manual". There are always exceptions, but this ain't one of them. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if Amazon is in on the conspiracy then so are we. Deceive, I mean Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, non-notable book published by vanity press--TBCTaLk?!? 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan-film ... errr ... vanity publication -- GWO
  • Point of Info Re: Ted's comment that the book was" not in any of the libraries I checked, including the Library of Congress." I actually checked the Library of Congress and found it under "America Deceived" with the registration #TXu 795-294. Maybe we should be careful about who we listen to in the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment, I still cannot see it in the library's online catalog, using title, ISBN, or author. Can you perhaps direct me as to which search criteria and which site you used to do this search? Or was this an in-person visit to the LoC? Thanks for any help. Kuru talk 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I seem to be looking at the same library of congress as User:Kuru and User:Calton. No trace of this book. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. User:205.188.117.8 is referring to the registration of the book's copyright with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress [32]. However, the fact that the book does not appear in the online catalog means that the author or publisher submitted the book to register the copyright, but after registering the copyright the library did not think the book was of sufficient general interest to keep in the library collection. --Metropolitan90 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails every guideline of notability. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Coredesat --Starionwolf 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Regarding IUniverse, isn't the IUniverse Amy Fisher book listed on her site. So it seems that some IUniverse books have made it on WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep ---Has anyone here, other than myself, read the book? I found it on Google Books (is that a credible source?). The book seems to be garnering alot of attention since it's release only a month ago. Do all IUniverse books make it on to Google Books? Don't know the answer. Maybe some time should pass before this deletion decision is made. To me, Wikipedia is a forward-looking dictionary, antcipating new ideas/books/events. It seems logical to keep something garnering interest (the book is all over the internet and Google Books and other sites, not too mention the 10-15 members who created this site). At the least, delay deletion until more facts can be gathered. The ISBN # is accurate. I don't know about LOC #. Also, the poorly attributed material (Amazon ban, who knows if it's true but there is a link on Google Books that no longer works) and the Craigslist Review (have been removed). Now that I think about it, change my vote from "Strong keep" to "Keep until more details are developed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader5372 (talk • contribs)
    • Forward thinking? No, we are not. Encyclopedias should look onto to the past and present, never to the future. And flattery will get you nowhere. Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP is not a crystal ball. Pascal.Tesson 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Google books has 17,600 hits for "iUniverse, inc". I'm guessing that all of iUniverse's books are there. Anyone can get an ISBN for their book, pamphlet, whatever. I think the current rate is about $50. As Agamemnon2 has stated, Wikipedia is not forward-looking. We have no crystal ball. If this book becomes notable, then it can always be added. TedTalk/Contributions 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are these fact-checkers? - Just ran the Google Books search (put in IUniverse to GOOGLE BOOKS), 219,000 pages came up BUT only the first 9 pages (about 90+ books) were IUniverse. The rest had the words "Universe" and "I" in the same sentence (not the publisher). Also some just had the word "Universe". Not published by IUniverse. So if there's 10,000+ books on IUniverse and only 90 are in Google Books, maybe that is notable. That's less than 1% of the books made by IUniverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Criteria (as per WP guideline):"Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify."

Does this book satisfy said criteria?

1st test - 'reasonably spread' - (Satisfied) Put it in Google and found over 10 pages (100+ sites mentioning it)

2nd test - 'several libraries or bookshops or no-subscription website' - (Satisfied) We already have a website (IUniverse - free previews), Google Books (free chapter previews) and Library of Congress (and more in google search).

3rd test - 'easily consult book' - (Satisfied) Again, chapter available on Iuniverse (free site), and Google Books (free site).

4th test - 'on-line reviews' - (Satisfied) as stated earlier in Svhoong and on other sites.

5th test - 'must have ISBN #' - (satisfied) No debate here.

6th test - 'availability' - See above on all sites listed.

Therefore, keep unless WP changes the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. The evidence being used in support of this book having an article is very weak, and the guideline being cited by the supporters probably needs to be tightened. Having an ISBN is not a sign of notability for a book, just that the author/publisher paid the small fee to secure such a number. (I don't blame the supporters for citing that, but it should be irrelevant.) The fact that the author/publisher have chosen to make free previews available on the publisher's web site and Google Books does not indicate notability. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince doesn't have a preview on Google Books, and America Deceived does, but that has everything to do with the permissions granted by the respective author/publishers and nothing to do with their relative notability. Nor is having a copyright registration a sign of notability, and no evidence has yet been provided that any library keeps this book in its collection. --Metropolitan90 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the above claim that criteria are met is, to say the least, unconvincing. The first test seems to be the number of ghits. I'm not sure this is not a typo but saying that 10 ghits is a sign of notability is, ahem, weak. The 2nd and 3rd point claim that the book is in several libraries and easy to consult which is factually wrong: the IUniverse and Google Books only have excerpts available and the Library of Congress does not have the book as several people have already explained. The 4th and 6th test concerns reviews but there is no indication that any of these reviews have appeared in any source of a reasonnable credibility. Schvoong? Come on... The 5th test is indeed passed but this simply should not be a criterion as Metropolitan90 has pointed out. Pascal.Tesson 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more notable than any other book from a vanity press. Arguments in favor of keeping this have been thoroughly debunked above. —Caesura(t) 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion of Tom Dennen
  1. No, I have not read the book, but the discussion should be about the assertion that Homeland Security is violating the 1st Amendment by caging protestors and forcing book outlets to stop stocking ("America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III).
  2. Iuniverse is a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble.
  3. The very fact that a discussion of this nature is a recordable piece of contemporary American history should be posted.
  4. It does not take a crystal ball to see where jailing dissenters, false flag scenaria and the erosion of civil liberties lead to - book banning for starters. History tells us quite clearly that there are progressive steps on the path America seems to be taking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomDennen (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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torre DeVito, Commuting (poem), Landscape of my Childhood, A Long Way South of Now, and I Knew a Hominid[edit]

NN poet, could barely verify the existence of a poet with this name, let alone anything about him/her. Contested prod. Mangojuicetalk 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding several nn poems by this author. There is some kind of vanity going on here; all those articles were created by either User:JAnderson or User:JAnderson@pagecandy.com, and pagecandy.com comes up with "Torre DeVito;" apparently, Torre DeVito is a web designer involved with pagecandy.com. Delete all. Mangojuicetalk 05:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are also a couple of redirects to Torre DeVito, and technically, Landscape of my Childhood is a "collection" of poems rather than a single poem. Regardless, none are verifiable or notable. Mangojuicetalk 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. I went through all of the links that come up for Mr. DeVito on google with this search [34]. Every single site that referred to this poet was a mirror or took its information from Wikipedia but for the subject's "official website" ([35]), which references this Wikipedia article, and otherwise has all broken links, and this site, [36], which lists him as a favorite poet among six other giants in poetry, but is apparently a homemade page and thus of no reliability. No relevant hits on google scholar. I think this afd should be extended to include the article subject's three other poems (currently prodded): Commuting, Landscape of my Childhood and A Long Way South of Now and vote (prematurely) to likewise Delete as unverifiable (googling the last listed poem's unique name returns nothing but mirrors).--Fuhghettaboutit 04:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that they're listed—Delete All--Fuhghettaboutit
  • Delete, unverifiable Seems to have been written by a friend to promote Torre DeVito. Otherwise non-notable poet. --Coredesat talk 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the others, too, as they're non-notable poems written by a non-notable author. Google turns up only Wikipedia mirrors and the author's website, where many of the links are broken, so some of these poems are unverifiable. --Coredesat talk 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, it's a walled garden! Yaaay! I mean, oh no! In all seriousness, I see no verification within the articles or elsewhere that this poet even exists, to say nothing of whether he has ever been published. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fairly obvious vanity. Danny Lilithborne 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity articles doktorb wordsdeeds 07:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claim of one poem being 'often' confused as Maya Angelou's lacks any verification. Also per above. Universitytruth 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it all, per all the great comments above. And, what do we know about the creator of these articles? Is it the author himself? If so, he needs a warning about creation of vanity pages. ---Charles 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Pascal.Tesson 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. for reasons below.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Pakistan[edit]

The topic has strong potential as per other Prostitution in country X articles (for example for Philippines, Nepal, South Korea or People's Republic of China). But this article is primarily made up of uncited or verified (WP:V) information and statements, I have tried to find sources for this information and have be unable to find direct verification of the information. With the lack of verification and the direct identification of a group of people (Fatima Jinnah Women University students aged 18-25), the content may be original research (WP:NOR) and could questionably be an attempt to attack or disparage. blue520 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as A6. As said, the title of the aritcle indicates a legitimate article, but the content has an extremely negative claim against a specific group, without citing sources (and I'm certain no reliable source would back up such an absurd claim). --Rob 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, fails CSD-A6, attack page, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV miserably. --Coredesat talk 04:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack article (violates A6). If not speedy, then it fails WP:NOR. TedTalk/Contributions 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it's really an attack page, and in fact I don't really detect any POV in it. But it is OR and an essay (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought), and I originally thought it might be a copyvio. If the article can be worked on from scratch with verifiable info, I will consider keeping. Morgan Wick 05:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Quote from article: So prostitution in Pakistan is not only a profession / need but also a hobby, and this behaviour of people is difficult to understand even by the worst dimension of humanity. Sounds like POV/attack to me. --Coredesat talk 06:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 16:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ma (The Lion King)[edit]

Somewhat major character in The Lion King 1½. She is the mother of Timon. The article might fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Maybe we should merge it into The Lion King 1½ or Timon and Pumbaa? The article mostly deals with the plot from The Lion King 1½ Starionwolf 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge plot details to both articles and delete the rest. --Coredesat talk 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Being a major character of The Lion King 1½ seems to satisfy the criterias of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)--TBCTaLk?!? 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usually a one movie/one TV episode character makes me prefer a merge, but in this case since she's done both I think we could keep her. We cover a few Lion King characters and might impress readers with that comprehensiveness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. David L Rattigan 08:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ma is a major character So What if it is merge I say keep it. Ma (The Lion King) should be an article. Mrsanitazier 10:54, 28 June, 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I guess this article satisfies WP:FICT... --Coredesat talk 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Znamenka (street)[edit]

short insignificant street in Moscow, not Broadway.- CrazyRussian talk/email 05:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable street. Unless the editors can provide something that makes this different than any other street in Moscow near the Kremlin, it should be deleted. TedTalk/Contributions 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other recent "pointless road article" AfDs (e.g. Reservoir Road, Upland rd) SM247 06:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable street. --Coredesat talk 06:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable street. --Starionwolf 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laitman[edit]

Utter and shameless self-promotion. Reads like a detailed and seductive "come hither, my dear" brochure. Violates Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; and WP:NN. This person is not a noted Kabbalist according to any stream of Judaism, and in fact his website says that he is not even a rabbi!: "The title “Rav” was given to Dr. Laitman by his students in respect for his teachings and his dedication to spreading the wisdom of Kabbalah throughout the world. Rav Laitman was not ordained as a rabbi by a rabbinical school and does not serve as an orthodox rabbi." see bottom of his home page. To call oneself a "rav" (which means Rabbi in Hebrew) and not be formally recognized, let alone ordained, by one's rabbinical peers is a contradiction in terms and could fool only the gullible. Almost all the information about him on Google is generated by his websites (peddling his writings and other self-promotional broadcasts) or by sites that mirror this article. The article about his Bnei Baruch organization is also nominated for deletion for the same reasons. Other articles, such as the one about Rabbi Baruch Ashlag have been loaded to "retroactively" promote Michael Laitman and his organization. Note: The same self-promoting editors have "snuck in" Laitman's quotes into Wikiquote, which should also be nominated for deletion for the above reasons. Thank you, IZAK 05:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 05:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pity someone actually spent the time writing the article. Look before you leap as they say. Evolver of Borg 06:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evolver: Don't pity the writer, he/she was in all probability a well-paid publicist who won't lose too much sleep or shed too many tears no matter what happens to this article -- they've already spent a small (?) fortune on hyping this up on the Internet and in the media beyond its paltry worth -- as he/she laughs all the way to the bank... :-} IZAK 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-written nom. --Coredesat talk 06:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nuff said. Ð’ntalk 07:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel really weird responding to this. The guy is a well-known fraud. And the article as it stands is a total lie. However, this guy has become one of the best-known frauds in the history of Kabbalah. Doesn't Wikipedia want articles on world-class frauds, as long as they aren't biased (which this article currently is, but that could be changed)? Dovi 08:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's obviously professionally written. Not opposed to recreation as a "Laitman is the biggest fraud..." type of article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'm open to a rewrite that demonstrates notability and NPOV, as well as adherence to other WP policies. Whether or not I find this guy's shtick palatable is really beside the point. --Leifern 12:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Czrussian. --Daniel575 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This violates WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V as the sources are worthy of a {{Self-published}} tag. Notability cannot be self-assigned (as much as many of us would like) and outside of his own books and pamphlets, he seems to be non-notable. Google searches mainlyl lead to this article, wikiquote, or his own site. Avi 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CB. Will leave criticism of religious and Kabbala credentials to others, but the The article makes some totally unsourced claims about scientists and science that are factually, to say the least, suspicious. Sample: "Today, Michael Laitman’s thirty years of research into the science of Kabbalah is finding recognition among leading scientists engaging into deep research of the surrounding world according to classical scientific paradigms." No statements (let alone sources) about who these alleged "leading scientists" are. Rest of the article has similar claims. --Shirahadasha 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Shuki 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. gidonb 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't we first read Laitman, M. 2003. Attaining the Worlds Beyond. Canada: Laitman Kabbalah Publishers; pp. 446—7 and pp. 442—3, before we make a call on this? No, just Delete as AUTOVANIHOAXCRUFT. ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's almost as good as Vancarlimospacecraft :) -- Avi 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or massive re-write: If he is as famous of a fraud as Dovi says, then he is notable enough to get a page, however it should be re-writen to reflect his frauds, otherwise, delete. In any case, the subsection about Laitman in the Baruch Ashlag article and others should be trashed. Also, AUTOVANIHOAXCRUFT is my new favorite wikipedia related word. Koweja 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --רח"ק | Talk 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK. Pure vanity. 172 | Talk 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bnei Baruch[edit]

Utter and shameless self-promotion. Reads like a detailed and seductive "come hither, my dear" brochure. Violates Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; and WP:NN. This new organization is not notable according to any stream of Judaism, and in fact its website says that its founder and leader is not even a rabbi!: "The title “Rav” was given to Dr. Laitman by his students in respect for his teachings and his dedication to spreading the wisdom of Kabbalah throughout the world. Rav Laitman was not ordained as a rabbi by a rabbinical school and does not serve as an orthodox rabbi." see bottom of his home page. Almost all the information about this organization on Google is generated by their websites or by sites that mirror this article. The article about its founder Michael Laitman is also nominated for deletion for the same reasons. Other articles, such as the one about Rabbi Baruch Ashlag have been loaded to "retroactively" promote Michael Laitman and his organization. Note: The same self-promoting editors have "snuck in" Laitman's quotes into Wikiquote, which should also be nominated for deletion for the above reasons. Thank you, IZAK 05:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer W. Kühne[edit]

Article about a self-proclaimed expert on time travel, the Lost City of Atlantis, cold fusion, magnetic photons, the arrangement of galaxies in the universe, the Pioneer anomaly, and the torsion tensor. Sheesh. These are all topics that attract the attention of cranks and kooks, WP doesn't deserve this kind of "love and attention" from anon editors. linas 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete of course. linas 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Over 140k Google hits. Only reasoning provided for deletion is that it could be a target for vandals, which could be said of a number of Wikipedia articles, unless you're nominating because you don't like his ideas, in which case I would vote speedy keep as WP:POINT. BTW, your nomination is typically read as a delete vote. Morgan Wick 05:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just cleaned up about two dozen vandalisms associated with this fellow (see my edit history as of now); these were the ones that others had missed. Very curious sockpuppetry: identical text added on same day by a large number of IP addresses, no IP address editing more than two articles. These were primarily to articles in physics, but also a few biographies and national parks. No, not trying to make a point, but if you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, both the current discusions and the archives, you will note that instead of talking about physics, this project spends most of its energy beating away pseudoscientific cranks. There's something wrong about that. WP is a magnet for cranks. I'd like to see some less labor-intensive process for keeping this stuff out. linas 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Kuhne seems to have been mentioned in quite a few notable media sources such as Antiquity, Time, National Geograpic, BBC, and ABC.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TBC. --Coredesat talk 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but someone please find a statement by a recognized source saying he's a crank. As it is, the article rather studiously avoids saying this. --Saforrest 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tree Biting Conspiracy, person is sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli skinheads[edit]

Essay, possible OR or WP:NOT violation. Meaning of title not evidently clear. Morgan Wick 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO (article seems to be about a neologism for the punk movement in Israel). Only 118 Google results [37]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, could be made into a legit article, but needs lots of work considering that it currently fails WP:NOR. I suggest that the author retract the material and works on it before reintroducing, otherwise Delete. --Shuki 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment if this were to become a legit article, it wouldn't do so under the current title. It appears to be a small subset of the broader topic Punk in Israel, which doesn't yet have (but may deserve) an article.--M@rēino 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete OR, as per Shuki. Pete.Hurd 02:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the original research. --Starionwolf 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 11:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tang[edit]

Delete - Vanity RidG Talk 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete as not notable enough, flash in the pan. May not be vanity article as events are well documented. In short, her parents died of cancer; she was featured in a human interest, rise above adversity story on Good Morning America and was given a hollywood whirlwind tour. See here. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's definitely not a vanity page. However before I vote keep or delete, I'd like to know why she isn't notable while Jason McElwain is (or if they're both notable or not). Yes, right now, J-Mac is extremely notable, but just to humor me, compare this version of the article with Tang's article, back when the two had seemingly similar flash-in-the-pan statuses (or statii). hateless 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll bite. Some may find her current notability enough while others won't. That's up to you. There certainly are differences between the two presently; a movie is being made about him, etc. But you want us to compare in the past. Without studying that article's past history, and going with the idea that there was a point in time when he was at the same point in his notability status as she is now, at that point in time I would have voted similarly. We can't look at a person's future for notability in the present, nor should we base our decisions on conjecture, and it is of no moment if 20/20 hindsight shows that if a deleted article was kept, if only we had had our prognostication hats on, it would have been the "correct" action. This is why we have a policy against crystalballism. If, in the future, she becomes more notable, then that future article will get a keep vote from me. Or if someone points out more current bases of notability here, I might change my decision. This is by no means an easy delete decision.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject is borderline WP:BIO and in my opinion falls on the short end. I also agree with Fuhghettaboutit... previous versions of Jason McElwain would have elicited a deletion opinion from me, though obviously the current version of said article makes a good case for inclusion. If at some future point Ms. Tang becomes the subject of a movie, or becomes a successful author, etc. the article could always be brought back via deletion review or started again from scratch.--Isotope23 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (WP:BIO). Not even close. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of such stories in the US every year (hard beginnings, pick-themselves-up-by-the-bootstraps character, reward). None of them are notable. TedTalk/Contributions 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Starionwolf 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ted. AgentPeppermint 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it possible to receive some media attention and still not be notable? Sure it is, and here's proof! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Skinnyweed 23:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Someone started a second AfD debate after someone removed the AfD tag - that debate has been closed as this one is still open. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- banality. Self-promoting sob story. Lots of kids have lost both parents and some still want to be doctors. Most kids dream big and end up achieving much less than the fame that they seek. --Paul from Michigan 17:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Steere[edit]

Vanity article by non-notable game inventor. (I think we can assume that PearlMcPurry is a sockpuppet for Mark Steere and MarkSteere.) I always think that award winning tends to be a synonym for dubious notability. -- RHaworth 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Only 109 relevant Google results [38]. Possibly also userfy as well--TBCTaLk?!? 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you always manipulate the truth? I get over 500 Google results when I search EITHER for "Mark Steere" and "game" OR "Mark Steere" and "designer"! Why should such a seach not be as "relevant" as your search???
  • Userfy and delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 07:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I userfied it already: here but he blanked the page. -- RHaworth 08:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, "award winning" is not a synonym for "dubious notability." It simply means what it says: award winning. I won the extremely prestigious Mensa Select award for Quadrature as can be verified by visiting http://mindgames.us.mensa.org/participant/past_winners.php and selecting the year 1993. I also recently won the 2006 Parents' Choice award, as can be verified by visiting http://www.parents-choice.org/get_direct_level.cfm?cat=c_gam&award=AW&awdyr=2006&awdse=a&product_code=p_toy. These are only two of the awards I've won for game inventing over the years. Every statement in the Mark Steere article can be verified. All of my games were programmed for online play by Aaron Dalton, proprietor of Super Duper Games as can be verified at http://superdupergames.org/main.html?page=about where all of my games are listed as well as http://wiki.superdupergames.org/ in "The Players” section under Mark Steere. A number of other programmers have also elected to program my games over the years of their own volition and at their own expense including Richard Rognlie of Gamerz.net, and Mark Okun of SetupGroup.com. All of their work can be easily located and verified. Innumerable articles, commentaries, and reviews on my games have been written in a number of languages including English, German, and Italian. The slightest investigative effort will produce prodigious evidence that I am in fact a world renowned game inventor.

Nothing in the Mark Steere article promotes my notoriety. Every sentence in the article is a simple statement of a well known fact. There are hundreds of relevant links relating to “Mark Steere” and all of my games in every search engine. There are no links in the Mark Steere article whatsoever. Every effort was made on the part of Pearl McPurry, the author of the Mark Steere article, to comply with the standards of Wikipedia.

I understand the detractors’ desire to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. But in my case I am clearly notable (with regard to game inventing), verifiable, and non-self promoting. If the Mark Steere article does actually violate any of the Wikipedia standards, please let me know, and I will make an immediate correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs)

All of the sources cited in the Mark Steere article as well as here in the deletion article are credible, neutral, and independent. I have read the entire Vain article very carefully and cannot find any indication of even the slightest infraction of any Wikipedia policies therein. Likewise the Mark Steere article satisfies the very first listed requirement in the Bio/Notability article - “a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.” I am also a “published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [my] work.”

There have been two citings of “Bio” and three citings of “Vain” by four enthusiastic members of the Wikipedia police club, yet none of them offers specific suggestions of how the Mark Steere article violates either the Bio or the Vain policies. A very thorough review of both the Bio and Vain policies only confirms that the Mark Steere article goes beyond the call of duty in complying with both.

  • Comment can you source the statement "published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [my] work..."? You make a stronger case if you provide evidence. Also, what exactly in the article constitutes "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field..."? The awards from Mensa and Parent's Choice? Beyond that, calling editors who have rendered opinions you disagree with "four enthusiastic members of the Wikipedia police club" is rather un-WP:CIVIL and personally speaking it doesn't really make me want to go out of my way to reconsider my opinion. I'm sure you know the old saying about honey and vinegar.--Isotope23 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Comment from Europe Mark Steere is a very important game inventor. The reviews of his games at BoardGameGeek were viewed hundred, if not thousands of times, thus mirroring his reputation in the gaming community. Most of his games can be played online. I would, however, recommend to make the article a little bit more neutral (the photo should be much smaller) and to add some information such as his date of birth, his profession, links & references and so on. BTW, I'm not a "sockpuppet", but Ralf Gering, the author of many articles published in the Canadian Abstract Games Magazine.

- Ralf Gering 20:22, 28 June 2006 (Central European Time)

  • Rebuttal First, thank you Ralf for your kind support. Isotope23, by “Wikipedia police” I was referring to the knee jerk group pounce on the latest biographical article, accompanied by rallying cries of “Vain” and “Bio.” Sure, I’d be happy to provide sources. But don’t you think that as the wielder of accusations that you bear some responsibility for citing specific instances of exactly *how* the rules were violated? Don’t you think you should research your own allegations and provide some sort of foundation? I combed the Vain and Bio articles three times in search of any remote basis for your rejection of the Mark Steere article and found absolutely nothing. On the contrary, the more I studied the articles the more they tended to justify and even call for such articles as the Mark Steere article.

Sources: Rule sheets for all of my games, authored by me, are published on BoardGameGeek.com, the definitive resource for board games. All submissions to Board Game Geek go through an approval process and are published at the discretion of the proprietors. Here is a link: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/designer/2321. Here are a couple of reviews for you: First a link to an Italian magazine with a description and review of my game Byte which appears in the last section: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/boardgamevariant/fda/FdA30.pdf. Here is a recent review of my game Cephalopod: http://www.thedicetower.com/thedicetower/index.php?page=Cephalopod. Another article you might find interesting is a description of my game Tanbo, published here on Wikipedia by Steve Bordelon in June 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanbo. I have no connection with Steve Bordelon and in fact had never heard of him before seeing his Wikipedia article on Tanbo. I think this goes to the “widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record” since I invented Tanbo back in 1993. Besides Mensa and Parents’ Choice I also received the Games Magazine Games 100 award for Quadrature in 1993.

This is all just the tip of the iceberg. I can provide many more game review sources, if called upon to do so. My games have earned a huge amount of recognition in the games community over the years. I have unequivocally met the Wikipedia requirement of being a “published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [my] work.” Many times over.

Now back to your part, Isotope23. Show me where the Mark Steere article falls short of *any* of the Wikipedia standards.

  • Comment first off, WP:BIO & WP:VAIN are guidelines, not rules. I can only speak for myself, but authoring rules sheets doesn't really meet my definition of "published author", though you are free to disagree. The other guideline you referenced from WP:BIO "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field..." is very open to interpretation. I'm not trying to be personally offensive to you, but I don't see anything that meets that definition. None of your games have been around long enough to have achieved the status of "enduring historical record" in my opinion. Concerning WP:VAIN... I've struck that above because the guideline I meant to reference was WP:AUTO, citing WP:VAIN was a mistake on my part. Regardless, the only real claim I see towards WP:BIO is if "author" is carried over to the authorship of the game as a whole. I can't think of any similar case off the top of my head, then again I've never seen a board game creator article here before. I'm still mulling over if that meets the author definition.--Isotope23 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authorship Authorship here refers to my authoring the original rule sheets. The games were invented. The rules were authored. Tanbo never won any awards but it is my most famous game now, 13 years after I invented it. If you ask any connoisseur of abstract games about Tanbo, he will definitely be familiar with it and will most likely have played it a couple of times. I don't see how Tanbo could be viewed as not being "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field...". There are many much more famous game designers than me. Their work is instantly lauded upon release. Then, in many cases, a few months later you see the complaints about the aimless gameplay and the increasing frequency of draws. These games won't be around forever. Tanbo will.
  • Comment based on your statements above I don't see you meeting WP:BIO because I do not consider you to meet the criteria as an author based on the authorship of rules sheet. As for Tanbo, trying to construe the future status of the game as meeting "...part of the enduring historical record in their specific field..." violates the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is too early to say if it has historical importance. I still favor a userfy over a simple delete because it allows you to retain the information on your userpage in case you meet WP:BIO at some point in the future.--Isotope23 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not construing. The field of modern abstract game invention has barely existed until recently. There was Reversi a couple hundred years ago, and there were Hex and Y in the 1950's. The field has only become highly active in the past couple of decades to the point where there are now hundreds if not thousands of abstract games. The vast majority of them are unheard of and never played. For a game like Tanbo to steadily grow in popularity with virtually no promotion over a period of 13 years indicates an outstanding game with endurance. I don't know what your criteria for endurance is, but I personally don't know of any abstract games older than 55 years with known inventors. Part of Tanbo's success, and what I believe will be continued success, is due to its use of generic equipment: a Go board and Go stones. Every game store has Go sets. It's the most popular game in China and Japan. As long as the very simple concept of Tanbo continues to spread by word of mouth, and as long as Go sets are available, Tanbo will be played.
  • I'm not convinced, and here I think we will simply have to agree to disagree. Good luck with your games though.--Isotope23 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the claims are sourced in the article. I now believe he's notable, but there's no WP:Verifiable assertion of notability in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Industrial-strength vanity, peacock language, inflated claims (I mean, "the extremely prestigious Mensa Select award"? Being selected as one of among the top 100 games for one year, 13 years ago? Please). I'm sure there are board-game designers who deserve articles (I'm told there are some kick-ass German designers), but this doesn't make the cut, no matter the volume of citations and wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do NOT make uncivil remarks in your comments Calton. TruthCrusader 12:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain some attachment to reality. Start by buying a dictionary. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with his word use? Why the bizarre critiques of flawless diction and flawless grammar?
  • Not Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate. I'm just claiming to meet the requirements of "notable" as specifically defined in the Wikipedia documentation. In particular I have clearly met the requirements of being published, receiving multiple awards and multiple independent reviews. I looked at your wiki page, Calton, with your Sockpuppet IP list and your motto "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that." I don't have a problem with that. I'm just wondering if you are somehow exempt from the "mopping up" that by your own stardards you so abundantly qualify for.
  • Not Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate. Dot's nice, but what part of my I'm sure there are board-game designers who deserve articles leads you to believe that that's my standard? As far as I'm concerned, ordinary notability standards excludes you, no matter how much you whinge about the rules and overload your comments with peacock language and question-begging adjectives. Your game got some minor attention. You? Not so much.
  • I don't have a problem with that I beg to differ, as your ludicrous overreaction of loghorrea to any and all contradiction of your self-proclaimed genius demonstrates.
  • I'm just wondering if you are somehow exempt from the "mopping up" that by your own stardards you so abundantly qualify for. Is there an English translation of that bit of passive-aggressive rhetoric available? It seems to be grammatically (though not orthographically) correct, but then, so does "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" -- with which your sentence seems to share roughly the same information content. --Calton | Talk 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like I touched a nerve, as evidenced by your side stepping grammatical analysis. [8D)
Comment. I would urge Mr Steere to moderate his responses to the issues raised here, and refrain from personal attacks on Calton or any other editor. Nobody would object if Mr Steere were to exhibit his achievements on his user page, as Calton does on his. The issue is whether or not his achievements are sufficiently notable to entitle him to an article in the main namespace. I myself am an award-winning engineer (British Aerospace Engineering Excellence Award, 1989), but I would not for one second regard that, of itself, sufficient to make me notable according to WP:BIO. Having won a MENSA award is indeed something to be proud of, but, in my opinion and in the opinion of others here, it's not enough to establish notability. Tevildo 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason, Starionwolf?This is supposed to be a debate, not a run-on list of "me toos." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs) 05:03, June 29, 2006
  • Have you thought about, I dunno, putting a cork in it and letting the actual Wikipedia editors come to a decision? --Calton | Talk 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What better advice to follow than your own? I thought we talked about that.
How many times do you have to be warned about your uncivil remrks Calton? TruthCrusader 12:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we talked about that "We" haven't talked about anything. YOU, on the other hand, have been leaving a string of inane and fact-free drivelings in my wake. It's not just that you're a wikistalker that annoys me, it's that you're not a very competent wikistalker. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, another "me too." Wikipedia has a *huge* number of members. I'm sure the Mark Steere article was not the first to trigger a run on list of mostly negative, "me toos." If you think the article should be deleted, state your case. Inane references to "Bio" and "Vain" don't constitute arguments. I seriously doubt if the powers that be are even remotely impressed by the addition of one more zero foundation "me too."
  • Keep. The multiple awards seem legit, and his games seem popular enough in the abstract games community to have attracted multiple independent programmers to write them up as software. His games seem more notable than he is himself, but he does indeed seem to be the author of multiple notable award-winning games. [Note: I'm not endorsing his prickliness here; just his notability.] -- Victor Lighthill 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Sorry about the prickliness. I don't have a real sugary personality, and I generally make my feelings known - positive or negative. This whole thing was started by someone in whose mind "award winning" equates to "non-notability." I found that obnoxious. Even less impressive was the migratory herd of bleating metooers. (I don't fault them for their difference of opinion, but *make your case*). I understand that my games are well known while I am not. But isn't that the point of encyclopedias? If you want to know the history of peanut butter, you look it up in Wikipedia, and you find that it has a long and varied history, having nothing to do with George Washington Carver.
  • Delete, Calton really sums this up quite nicely. RFerreira 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your user page reveals your eminence in the wiki search-and-destroy crusade. How pitiful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs) .
Sorry. Let me rephrase that: I genuinely feel sorry for people whose lives are so empty that they find purpose in the dogged pursuit of errant wikipedians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs) .
It should also be pointed out that the question of whether User:MarkSteere should be blocked is independant of whether the article Mark Steere should be deleted. There are some exceptions, but the article should stand or fall on its own merits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long does it generally take for the real editors to get around to reviewing the article in question? This is all growing rather tiresome. To be honest, I no longer care if the article makes the cut. It won't have a significant impact on my life either way.
  • Observations. I've learned a few things about Wikipedia through this "Articles for deletion" process. There is a subset of the community that monitors and attempts to weed out articles of questionable importance. Even though it's directed at me in this case, I view this process as a good thing. It keeps Wikipedia from being overrun with junk which would make it difficult to access the useful information. I also like the group response against personal attacks. It tends to squelch the escalation of counter attacks and flame wars which can essentially sabotage a forum. What I don't like about the process is that it seems to foster a small percentage of "bad apples" who are so horribly inadequate that they've made a career out of hunting down and attempting to minimize the accomplishments of others. There's probably a word for them here, like "wikitaliban" or something. I don't know what can be done about them. Maybe place a limit on how frequently one can recommend articles for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Republicans[edit]

List that is basically copied info from the main College Republicans page. That is the place for that info to go to. Burgwerworldz 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Federation of College Republicans[edit]

  • Keep Other statewide youth political organizations from the United States have articles as stated below. Also, foreign political youth organizations on the state level such as the Western Australian Young Liberals have pages. I think the reason some are attacking this article is for political reasons as no left of center groups have been challenged. User:RyanofCumbria
This being Wikipedia, there's a simple solution to that: you could, I dunno, do something about it yourself. Don't whine: click here, follow the instructions, and take some responsibility -- or were you waiting for the government to do something about it? --Calton | Talk 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only state federation of the College Republicans that has an article. Violates WP:ORG and comes off as an ad. Burgwerworldz 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG is only a proposed policy; it has yet to gain consensus. Further, these are not individual chapters of an organization, but instead statewide groups of them. Also, you're wrong when you say this is the only state federation of College Republicans that has an article: Illinois_College_Republican_Federation. Also, when you consider statewide groups of college political parties, we have: College_Democrats_of_New_York, California_College_Democrats, and Tennessee_Federation_of_College_Democrats amongst others; not to mention also for Michigan there exists Michigan_Federation_of_College_Democrats, which hasn't been nominated for deletion. Ryanminier 12:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana versus Indiana State(Soccer game)[edit]

Per the author's edit summary, "I wonder if this will last." My vote is "no," at least not without some details on why this game is sufficiently signiciant (aside from the lopsided score). WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RidG Talk 05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment perhaps it belongs in a trivia section on another page about college soccer or soccer itself, but not its own page. Seems like a notable statistic, but not more than that, so no scope for an article. SM247 06:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a soccer article per above, but only if this is a fairly unique occurrence - if such scores happen regularly, just delete. SM247 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the appropriate article (possibly college soccer), as the trivia is definitely notable. --Coredesat talk 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After further research (which involved looking through the NCAA Media Guide, which I had to find myself), this article isn't truthful. "Points" and "goals" are not one and the same in soccer, and only 19 goals were scored in that game. --Coredesat talk 07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This wasn't the most lopsided soccer game ever. In 2002, in Madagascar, AS Adema beat SOE 149-0 (the losing team spent the whole game scoring own goals in protest of a referee's decision). [39] --Metropolitan90 07:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat, however the game did show up on p16 of the media guide as most points scored in a game. Good factoid to smerge somewhere, although where i'm not sure. hateless 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though 'tis a pity that this is probably the only football that Indiana University is any good at. Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of (semi) interesting facts. TedTalk/Contributions 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Indiana University. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with College soccer article, as trivia (I suppose) with proper citations and (per Coredesat) verification of facts. ---Charles 20:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, according to the media guide, this wasn't the most lopsided college soccer game, either. Not sure there's anything mergeable here. --Coredesat talk 05:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Still, don't you think there is something at least slightly notable about the match? ---Charles 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wood (author)[edit]

While "Janes" is a notable book, i beleive that Derek Wood isn't a notable author (try a ghit) David Humphreys 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Derek Wood disambig page has more info than the present article being discussed here. SM247 06:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, author has written quite a few books, none of which seem to be self-published, thus satisfying WP:BIO[40]--TBCTaLk?!? 06:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to satisfy WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 07:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Author seems to be more prolific than is indicated in this article. Kuru talk 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs and organizations of Columbia University[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is the only example that I found of a page like this for a college, and most major colleges have hundreds of groups. Burgwerworldz 05:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a mere list of non-notable clubs (despite the fact they are at an Ivy League school) and in its present form is full of non-descript text entires and external links and not much else. SM247 06:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Coredesat talk 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination as referenced by WP:NOT a collection of indescriminate information.--Isotope23 13:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. --Greenmind 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. --Starionwolf 04:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft. —Hanuman Das 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Penndorf[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:BIO. RidG Talk 05:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7--TBCTaLk?!? 06:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above, probably no need for AfD on this one. Laughably bad. SM247 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it stands a clear CSD A7. --blue520 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. Already tagged. --Coredesat talk 07:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Sango123 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle Hill[edit]

Not a copyright violation, but it's excerpts from a book of Theodore Roosevelt's. Not appropriate for Wikisource due to its incompleteness. I note that there's been a rewrite tag on this article for fifteen months, so I feel somewhat justified in saying that anybody who wants this article kept has the length of this AfD to clean it up. TheProject 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buno Knows Best![edit]

Hoax. A comedy produced so far off Broadway that Google has never heard of it. -- RHaworth 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Alan Gallant[edit]

Does not seems to be notable. abakharev 06:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and userfy to User:Tronus who seems to be Gallant as evidenced by his contributions[42]--TBCTaLk?!? 06:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A novel is being published by this author. This events and history of this author are important to the era throughout the city of New York. This article should not be deleted. All notations will be used throughout the article as the author receives them.{{Tronus 06:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)|Tronus}}[reply]
  • Delete and userfy as per TBC. Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the list of notables: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events -- Please clarify your wish for deletion.{{Tronus 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)|Tronus}}[reply]
    • How exactly is Gallant notable? His only "claims" to notability include the creation of a non-notable website with no Alexa ranking [43], for writing a few self-published non-notable books, as well as for taking pictures of 9/11 that don't seem to be mentioned anywhere by the media[44].--TBCTaLk?!? 06:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm including the amazon.com book and as many links as I can until launch dates for upcoming sites are in. I'm not trying to 'fight' you personally, I'm trying to get an understanding on how to make this a valid entry, which it is due to the accomplishments of Gallant. Also, please understand that an entire website under gallantnyc.com featuring the entire collection of his works and photography and published materials is launching. I'm not sure what else is required. FYI, there is an Alexa ranking. {{Tronus 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)|Tronus}}[reply]
        • Simply being included in amazon.com does not always merit notability, since amazon.com includes basically all books, regardless of notability, sales, or publisher. Also, I've just checked gallantnyc.com and it doesn't have an Alexa ranking as well[45]. Either way, note that I am not trying to "fight" you personally either, though please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that entries on people with little or no notability should not be included. If you really want a web page about yourself, I suggest you go to myspace or geocities. --TBCTaLk?!? 07:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've still not defined 'little' notability per the deletion guidelines. There are many up-and-coming authors with wiki entries. Myspace and geocities for a software engineer with a personal site launch? The dry humor is noted, but the validity for deletion is not. GallantNyc.com is a newly launching site under development, how does an Alexa ranking for a newly developed site have anything to do with notable references to the history of an author living in New York City with details going back 9 years? It doesn't. There is still no clear definition on how you describe what is notable 'enough' for acceptance. It is understood this is an encyclopedia and due the oustanding accomplishments of this author it is a valid entry for this encyclopedia. --Tronus 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Articles on "up-and-coming authors" not only violate WP:BIO, but WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as well. Also, I mentioned the Alexa ranking of GallantNyc.com since you noted above that "there is an Alexa ranking" when there clearly wasn't. If you really wanted to know Wikipedia's perspective of notability and criteria for keeping articles, feel free to check WP:BIO, WP:N, or WP:NOT. Anyhow, please try not to take this personally, I'm doing my best to remain civil. :)--TBCTaLk?!? 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not taking it personal, I'm actually learning as we converse, I just need to understand why this would not be a valid entry for this wiki considering it was just entered with bio pertinent to the author's information and career. Also the Alexa entry was in reference to skratchpad.com, not to gallantnyc.com which is in launching stage. The main point was not to just get WP:BIO and have at that, but to get an understanding on why exactly this would not be considered a viable entry for an entity with multiple notable references, especially when there's been no chance for the author's fanbase or anybody to update the information themselves.
                • Overall, basically it does not seem to be a notable entry because: 1. No google results [46] 2. The websites he created have no Alexa ranking [47][48] and are not mentioned in any major media sources thus not notable (note that Alexa shows the site's traffic ranking). 3. Being a self-published author violates WP:BIO 4. Being listed on amazon.com does not merit notability 5. Books not yet published, thus violating WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball 6. No citations to verify that Gallant has had his photos published in any major media sources--TBCTaLk?!? 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going over WP:VAIN according to Wiki definitions: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. --Tronus 07:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Assuming this isn't a vanity article, he's still not notable per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 08:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. I'm still trying to figure out what that's supposed to mean, but regardless, if a subject is not famous, why would they have an article? --Calton | Talk 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. TLDPTM, M. (H: A:III, Sc:ii; WS) -- GWO
  • Delete NN. WP:VAIN, QED. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gasiorek[edit]

nn college student. Seems to be created in conjunction of possibly soon deleted article Computer Club of Western Michigan University. Has "claim to fame" of helping develop some Novell software. This violates WP:VAIN Burgwerworldz 06:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, his friend unfortunately is not enough of an open-source rock-star to have his own article. —Centrx→talk • 06:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How can I become an "open source rock star"? Extremely NN vanity. --Alphachimp talk 06:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Only 515 relevant Google results [49]--TBCTaLk?!? 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gotta do more than be a programmer for a major corporation to get an encyclopedia entry, otherwise we'd need to move a lot of User pages to the article namespace. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable open-source rock-starcruft. Amazinglarry 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO - article reeks of vanity as well. Low googlage - claim to fame is that he worked on an open-source groupware client (and a "rock-star" with no backing). We need an article for someone like Andy Glaister - [50], but this guy... not quite yet. RN 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - no content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finngate Pictures[edit]

Commercial Entry. Just links. Kf4bdy 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. The article (as of now) contains only two sentences, one of which is a link to the company website.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. Borderline A1. --Coredesat talk 07:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The company's web site at http://www.finngatepictures.com suggests that it is doing some interesting things. Perhaps some of the projects mentioned there could be qdded to the article which at this point is still a stub. TruthbringerToronto 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After some careful Googling, none of their projects are mentioned anywhere except on Wikipedia mirrors and on their own website, and are thus unverifiable. History Undercover: Terror Strikes Moscow has an IMDB page, but it doesn't seem like a notable special, as almost no info can be found about it. --Coredesat talk 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One cable-TV documentary and one short film is all IMDB has on these guys, and doesn't come CLOSE to notability as a company in the media industry. Delete. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom.TheRingess 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 10:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity[edit]

This page is inherently original research and cannot be NPOV'd. It reads more like the outline for a (potentially interesting but not Wiki-material) tract about comparative religion than an encyclopedia article. Delete as original research. JDoorjam Talk 06:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as unsuitable to ever be npov and not OR.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, miserably fails WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination or, as a second choice, redirect to Abrahamic religion. --Metropolitan90 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; POV and original research--TBCTaLk?!? 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this type of comparation is well established in the religionistics and philosophy since 19th century at least (e.g. Max Weber wrote whole books about this theme, but he had of course many predecessors). So it is not original research, it is only unsourced. Regarding the POV - it can be corrected by citing the appropriate sources a making exact citations. In my opinion, the article is not unsalvable and the theme is reasonably well rooted in the scholarly tradition of Comparative Religion. It should be perhaps marked by NPOV and Unsourced, but not deleted.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep Probably better to conceive of (rename) this as a comparison, not list of similarities. Not a bad idea, just needs work and sources. SM247 08:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per [[[User:Ioannes Pragensis]]. Only reservation is that we do have an article Abrahamic religions, and I suspect a thorough read would reveal a lot of duplication. David L Rattigan 08:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in light of the above, no need to keep. SM247My Talk 09:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Ioannes Pragensis. I think that setting out an explicit table of similarities and differences is a good idea; I agree that such a comparison _could_ go into the main Abrahamic religion article, but I don't see any real disadvantage in giving it an article to itself. Tevildo 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am slightly against the proposed merge because both articles - if elaborated enough - would be rather voluminous. - I think that a good idea is to move the discussed article to a better name; this one is really not well chosen. --Ioannes Pragensis 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think there is probably so much overlap, a merge would not involve a huge increase in volume. David L Rattigan 11:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material may be the same, but the organization will vary. The article about "similarities" tends to be a comparative table, organized around small topics, while the article about Abrahamic religions is narrative and the scope of its chapters is rather broader. There are "table" articles here, e.g. Comparative military ranks of World War II, and they are IMHO not bad - so why not to do the same in the religionistics?--Ioannes Pragensis 12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this get verification added to the article before close of AfD. Right now I have to assume this is original research unless sourcing is provided.--Isotope23 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment not a reason for deletion, but the Differences section is such a gross oversimplification of the Christian worldview and contains so many outright falicies that it needs to be completely rewritten if this is kept. I can't speak for the Jewish content, but the Islamic content appears to be greatly misleading as well.--Isotope23 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment agree, the whole article is full of nonsense and oversimplification by now. But many good articles started like this... --Ioannes Pragensis 13:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, like I said above, I can't endorse keeping this unless it gets sourced, but if it gets kept outright or on a "no consensus", I'll hit it with the edit stick... I just really don't want to do a major edit if the article is going to get deleted.--Isotope23 14:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a rather clear-cut case of original research - lots of claims backed up only by the editors themselves. RN 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOR. I'd suggest starting again as a section in Abrahamic religions. NPOV and NOR issues can be worked out there. If it becomes large enough, or the tone is divergent enough, then it can be separated out easily as a full-blown article. TedTalk/Contributions 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Abrahamic religions Eluchil404 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a section under this heading to Abrahamic religions as per Ted or Keep and change heading to theories on Comparative Religion as per Ioannes Pragensis. Tiamut 20:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge - make it so! Wait, that's Star Trek. Well, merge it anyway. Proto///type 10:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Carrier[edit]

Stub, incorrect information, cannot be wikified, unencyclopaedic, innappropriate material for merge, majority vote on discussion page Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Stargate cruft. Too derivative for its own article. Tangent: Ummm, that signature is...trying to think of a word here...voluminous. Have to space down to even make this format correctly--Fuhghettaboutit 07:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Daedalus class battlecruiser. Also, is that a fair use image in that sig? If it is then it has to be removed. :P--TBCTaLk?!? 07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft, redundant to Daedalus class battlecruiser. One of the editors also calls for it to be a discussion forum about the subject ("feel free to add your own opinion"), which violates WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Daedalus class battlecruiser per the pre-existing notice on page. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft Artw 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Daedalus class battlecruiser per the pre-existing notice on page. RayGates 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Daedalus class battlecruiser. --Starionwolf 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as discussed on the talk page. Really no point having an AfD for a page that has unanimous support for a merge of its talk page - even the original author agrees. --Tango 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I'll give voters until the end of the 4th of July, 2006 (UTC), to submit their vote. After which time, the majority will be carried out - by myself. I will merge or nom for Speedy Delete as per the vote. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 13:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC) PS: Hope I don't forget! lol.[reply]

Let an admin close it. Non-admins should only close completely non-contraversial AfD's, as I understand it (and this one has multiple votes for different things, so it doesn't come under that description). I think the speedy delete reason that talks about things that have gone through AfD is intended for mistakes, not for non-admins to close a page an AfD as "delete" and then get someone else to actually do the deletion. --Tango 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Ochlocracy – Gurch 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry mob[edit]

This article is nonsense, but not patent nonsense. It contains nothing whihc is not inherently obvious from the title, other than some foolishness about baseball bats and AK-47s. It has been suggested it be merged, I think it is better to merge it with the bitbucket. Just zis Guy you know? 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep/Re-direct Look, people arnt going to serarch for Ochlocracy are they? No. Their gonig to search for Angy Mob. Their wasnt even a mention of your precious Ochlocracy on the disambugation page and as creator, I am happy for this article to be merged and then for it to become a redirect. Lay off you Trigger happy buggers! Use some of the content.

Dfrg.msc 10:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. Possibly BJAODN as well?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ochlocracy—which would be a valid and very helpful redirect (imho). GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there a useless nonsense category? Dipics 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. There's not a whole lot here worth merging. --Coredesat talk 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to that word i can't spell. Joeyramoney 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect somewhere; legit search term. Ochlocracy would work fine, although I think we should also consider Crowd psychology. It depends on whether we think the "Angry mob" searcher would be more interested in the impact of the mob or in how it works. --Allen 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ochlocracy as per User:GeorgeStepanek. How the mob works can be explained within Ochlocracy with appropirate links to Crowd psychology. Crowd psychology is however, more than merely an Angry mob - doesn't have ot be that and often is not.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see it as a useful redirect. Kevin 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If you read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion you can see that this page has NPOV, verfibility, and no original research. Why should we delete this page?--Taida 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is complete bollocks :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is definitely not complete bollocks. Wikipedia defines "complete bollocks" as having only the most tenuous connection to reality and all its facts have a very strong connection to reality.--Taida 01:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe that it's total rubbish, but the article contains virtually nothing that is not in other articles already—and better written to boot—so at this point making it a redirect is probably the best thing to do. Which is not to say that someone can't write an excellent article about angry mobs in the future. But this is not it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even if we can't keep this article we should still merge it instead or deleting or redirecting because it does have some good information.--Taida 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Taida, for not being delitionist. Dfrg.msc 10:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Cooking apple. --Ezeu 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baked apple[edit]

hmmmm don't think this is worthy of inclusion ??? David Humphreys 07:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef. Only has two lines, of which basically describes that a baked apple is an apple that is baked (which is sort of obvious if you look at the name of the article).--TBCTaLk?!? 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. --Coredesat talk 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Give it its due id does say you can have cinnamon aswell lol !!! David Humphreys 07:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in to Cooking apple.--blue520 08:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Blue520. SM247 08:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cooking apple. Great idea Blue! - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. TedTalk/Contributions 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Blue520. Wikibooks is a cookbook, but there's no recipe in this article, so there's nothing to transwiki.--M@rēino 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Blue. As with a lot of foods, I think enough can be said about baked apples that is neither dicdef nor recipe. --Allen 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cooking apple, since this is a likely search term. Yamaguchi先生 08:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' and Redirdct per Yamaguchi先生. Eluchil404 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per others. - CNichols 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-informatics[edit]

Neologism, the only results on Google are a few business listings (I think 5+ different companies with the same name) and the rest are random. I find no reference to what the article says is the definition. mboverload@ 07:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLOB[edit]

A group of four satirical blogs. It is pretty new (started one month ago) and the article does not assert notability and apparently does not meet WP:WEB. Speedy deletion contested, so AfD. Ioannes Pragensis 07:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB; non-notable blogs, not mentioned in any major media source--TBCTaLk?!? 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. How is The staff of contributors is headed by ex Men's Health and Maxim UK editor and regular Huffington Post contributor, Greg Gutfeld. not an assertion of notablity? Isn't that similar to new band by notable musician guideline? I don't think it has information yet though. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fear that the current Wikipedia guidelines of notability do not contain this criterion. Moreover the guy (red link) is probably not as notable as you think - to be fired from two magazines in a row is not a memorable success in my eyes.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow (Michigan State University)[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that a television show only broadcast on a campus television network, with no significant broadcasts and no significant alumni (I personally do not count the Slate columnist as significant enough for keeping this article), is sufficient enough in notability to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. — Mike • 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. There is extensive information on this article that would be difficult to recover, and furthermore the show is being worked for a more public broadcast in the near future. Having it here is useful to people from the area, and useful to everybody else given the link where episodes may be viewed (making it a valid web show for everyone and thus meriting inclusion). Warteen 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. (I see no mention of a Slate columnist in the article, just a State News cartoonist, State News being the Michigan State student newspaper.) If the information would be difficult to recover, it can be moved to Warteen's user space if he would prefer. --Metropolitan90 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved the information to my user space in case, as you suggested, but I still do not want to see the page get deleted if it can be helped. Adam 12:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to Michigan State University. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:16Z
  • Merge to Michigan State University per Quarl. If not, Delete. -- Wikipedical 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main reason to vote Don't Delete: Online broadcasts have been shown to be sufficient. This is evident in entries for Homestar Runner and hundreds of others (even webcomics). The only difference here is the size of the fan base, which hasn't been shown to be a reason for deletion with the numerous "cult classic" and independent films chronicled on Wikipedia. Also, in terms of depth of information (which may or may not be a factor), there is much more here (and the show is more accessible to view) than most cancelled shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.41.199 (talk • contribs)
    • Merge per above; Actually, such cult classics are considered for inclusion because of celebrities being involved. As soon as it concerns an independant film, awards and audience are generally taken into account. If you see articles with which that didn't happen, let us know. They should be deleted and don't warrant more articles of the same type. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 28 June 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, —Whouk (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... University broadcast show with limited viewship range. I don't see a strong case via WP:WEB for the online broadcast either.--Isotope23 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Isotope. Agent 86 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It appears they are using Wikipedia as advertising for the show. The audience is small and local. online broadcast fails WP:WEB for much the same reason. TedTalk/Contributions 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --Coredesat talk 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. I attend MSU, and this is the first time I've heard about it. --Musicpvm 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Starionwolf 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burbank Computers[edit]

Blatant advertising. -- Netsnipe 08:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP.--blue520 08:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advert that shares little about the company itself but focusses on supposed 'cutting edge' services. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above...obvious advert. PJM 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Siddha – Gurch 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siddha Guru[edit]

Non notable, non English term. No references, no sources. No real way to verify that this is the actual definition of the term.DeleteTheRingess 08:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdraw and no consensus, so keep, with a redirect or merge a possibility per below. — Deckiller 11:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Terminology[edit]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary -- Koffieyahoo 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a similar list exists in the form of Glossary of rhetorical terms, and taking into account Centrx comments on the possible merge, I would hereby like to withdraw my proposal for AfD. -- Koffieyahoo 05:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to literature. SM247My Talk 09:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to literature per User:SM247 which describes several terms in prose. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Glossary of rhetorical terms, which does something rather similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Glossary of rhetorical terms. --Coredesat talk 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem is that Glossary of rhetorical terms contains terms specifically in rhetoric, that is used to persuade the listener or reader, which is not the same as in general literary terms like these, which are techniques used in books, etc. to evoke imagery and convey a story. There is some overlap, but these terms do not belong in a "Glossary of rhetorical terms". Literature has no proper place to insert this. Literary technique may be OK, but in that case there is not a lot of overlap, indicating it may not be the right place. Perhaps there needs to be split to different places, but I am not familiar enough with the layout of literature articles on Wikipedia to perhaps do the best job. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper CD[edit]

Please note that I have blanked it as part of tagging as copyvio. Please vote on this version of the article, as that is how it was before blanking. ViridaeTalk 10:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An optical disk format allegedly capable of holding 10,000 Gbytes of data on one disk. Won an award in 1999 but for some reason still not commercially available. This page at CD freaks discusses it. About the kindest thing it says is: high probablity cannot work outside a lab environment. Probable vanity article. (And anyway it's a copyvio from http://www.dntb.ro/users/frdbuc/hyper-cdrom/hyper.htm .) -- RHaworth 08:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious copyvio, so the current content should go, but the topic sounds fascinating. Keep if anyone is willing to rewrite (even as a stub), otherwise delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged as a copyvio. ViridaeTalk 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this seems like it might be barely notable enough for my standards when it comes to technology because it is a revolutionary design, instead of something like a slightly improved inkjet printer. There is a PC World article on it in addition to the CD Freaks one. Obviously, it needs to be rewritten. The group TLC released something they called a Hyper CD, too. If they are mentioned, then strong delete as per WP:SPITE. -- Kjkolb 11:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Zetawoof. -- Kjkolb 09:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a briefly well-publicized hoax. Most of the press releases and articles point to a single site, and date back to 2001 or 2002, while stating that this would be available "within a year". As there's been no further word from the good Doctor, it seems safe to assume that this went nowhere; it's entirely possible that the technology was entirely fictitious. In particular, the main photo looks suspiciously like a normal CD-ROM drive with a few ordinary CDs sitting in front of it, and the technical explanation is even captioned as a diagram of a LCSM (laser confocal scanning microscope), not a rewritable drive! Zetawoof(ζ) 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio and redundant. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The murders of gangsta rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G.[edit]

wikipedia is not a place for your essay -- Koffieyahoo 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the creator of the article gave away the truth right at the top of the article: It's a copyvio from Crime Library (which is, by the way, a good, interesting site that I wish had an article :P) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. SM247My Talk 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's too old to be a speedy candidate. The old fashioned way of dealing with copyvios will have to suffice. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I thought I was the only one who knew that there is a 48 hour limit. ;-) Now if only we can teach people what a commercial content provider is (someone who makes money directly from the content that has been copied, such a newspaper or encyclopedia that charges a subscription or sells ad space. advertising and business documents do not count unless people are paying to see it or ad space is sold. yes, it is that limited, and yes, it is nearly useless). -- Kjkolb 11:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their murders/deaths should be (and no doubt are) covered in the articles about the individual artists. I don't like the limits on copyvio removals. It's clearly a copyright violation and there's no chance at all the submitter wrote it themselves. I think content from entities like Crime Library should be deleted even if they're not commercial. Isn't the limit there to give people the chance to claim ownership. Shouldn't be needed here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Staff of Michigan State University Residence Halls Association[edit]

Listing of non-notable staff members from a college club whose notability may also be in question. Fails WP:ORG, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Prod tag removed by editor, never sent to AfD. Coredesat talk 09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Events Sponsored by Michigan State University Residence Halls Association. --Coredesat talk 09:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, and if the aformentioned two articles are deleted, then I think the main residence hall organization page should go as well.--Burgwerworldz 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information, though I disagree with Burgwerworldz about the main article. It's one of the largest Resident Hall Associations in the U.S., though the article is badly in need of cleanup and further sourcing.--Isotope23 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to list the main association for deletion just yet, but again, we are talking about a specific set of college dormitories, which are not notable to the masses. --Burgwerworldz 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Even if the main organization is encyclopedic, job description listcruft of former employees is not. What next, list of former staff of Microsoft? Harvard? Or of every >>coff<< "notable" school that has an article? Agent 86 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Unless there is notability in being in the list itself, such lists are inherently non-notable, even if the Residence Halls Association were notable. TedTalk/Contributions 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (PS apologies for the crude sentence).[reply]

Delete and tell the creators how to start a wiki at Wikia.--M@rēino 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 08:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous successes in science and engineering[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable list with a generic inclusion criteria of "famous" and "success". Basically a page to hype up one's favorite pet projects. No continuity between topics. Some attention should also be given to List of famous failures in science and engineering. While I can think of possible sources for the latter, what sources are there for this?

To preserve the integrity of the vote, this is not a joint nomination for the "failures" article, but if there is interest, I'll put that up for AfD as well. Mmx1 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep MMx1, to quote one Daffy Duck, you... are... despicable. Don't take your F-14 anger to ruin other WP articles. Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied by editing, Mmx has shown serious judgement failure in the past. He has appointed himself final arbiter of truth on the F-14, see talk on F-14 even though he refuses to recognize any citations contrary to his POV up to Janes Defence, and a VP of Grumman. He has simply followed a link at the bottom of the F-111 page, from the F-14 page, and is simply another example of removing material from the WP without justification. This page is obviously well trafficed and edited, and of use to many people. WP states that deletion of information which does not improve WP is vandalism. His intent is to knock down other people's carefully constructed sandcastles, not improve the WP. In my opinion, this is exactly what Mmx1 is attempting to do. Please do not support this behavior.--matador300 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I've separately nominated *Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_failures_in_science_and_engineering.

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)

  • Strong Keep Observe that lists like this are not banned. Here is a list that has been kept 3 times.--matador300 14:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in every possible way. The group of songs listed seems very random, and there are several listed that I would definitely not consider the worst ever. At the end of the day, there is no way this article can be NPOV. Many of the songs follow with explanations of why the user PERSONALLY feels the song is one of the worst ever. This article is mostly original research. I don't see it being useful in any way, as it will always be filled with personal opinions and views. --Musicpvm 01:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC) This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November, 2005. The result was "keep". This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2005. The result was "keep".

  • Delete. Smacks of WP:OR, and is listcruft. --Coredesat talk 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there a list of obscure successes? Infamous ones? Daniel Case 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV (same applies for List of famous failures in science and engineering which can probably be discussed with this one. SM247My Talk 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, famous NPOV failures in WP. Reader should be able to read articles and decide for themselves whether they are successes. Project Apollo is declared a success, no way is that a universally accepted "fact", there are way too many complexities for such a glib assessment. WP is no place for introductory statements like "the failures are well remembered, but perhaps not enough has been said of humble designs that were destined for greatness, and stubbornly refuse to die of obsolesence." Per nom, the problem is the success criteria used - inherently problematic, so cleanup will solve nothing. --DaveG12345 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual list entries are oversimplified and have weird POV issues. This seems more like one person's opinion than an encyclopedic entry. Rob Banzai 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I gave this article a brief cleanup at one point, but now this article doesn't seem all that encyclopaedic; it has problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and so it's probably better just to delete it. Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- Alias Flood 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Are you guys nuts? This was created by me as a success mirror to the failure page. POV is not judged by the article, only that a large number of people have judged a project or product to be a spectacular success. There are many pages like this listing articles and objects that are most or least of something, and routinely done by journals such as Car and Driver for automobiles. I would much rather have a WP inclusive of these sort of pages than invoke a ban. Surely WP would not object to a list of most famous authors, top grossing movies, or most important events in the 1970s. Many entries show successes that were intially failures. If you kill the science success / failure pages, you'll also have to eliminate the similar list of computer flops, movie flops, governemnt flops, education flops, and sports flops. I don't think you can delete this page unless you can show a WP category ban for this sort of thing. If there is a ban, you'll have to enforce it across all topics, say so in the Wiki documentation in the appropriate list of what not and not to include in WP, and WP will be much poorer for it. I was about to nominate the J79 engine as a success, but you folks are going to take it all way. PlEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ don't kill it.--matador300 10:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Things like top-grossing movies and the like are objectively verifiable based on takings and profits. This is a big list of unencyclopaedic personal opinions and depend inherently on the viewpoint of the reader or editor. I am sure we would object to lists of the most important 1970's events and dicsussions of who is the most 'famous author' as these labelling exercises depend on no objective basis and are not informative. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles are not directly cited, but link to articles that either are cited, or aren't cited either, and you don't go around tracking those down and deleting them, do you? I am really annoyed at the huge bias towards deleting really fun innovative material you can't find elsewhere in the open source world.--matador300 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any article which asserts a proposition must provide a source. Wikipedia is not a sufficient source for this. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has a policy against original research masquerading as encyclopedia articles. Calling this list "really fun innovative material" kinda incriminates it, I would say. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sure, somebody could look at Apollo at see that it was a success. But who would know to look for it in the first place if he were to look for a list of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century??--matador300
    • Comment Using words like success or failure if you haven't noticed involves a necessary normative judgment that is largely a matter of personal position, opinion or taste. I don't know exactly what your above comment means, but I assume you are saying that a list of achievements is needed. One like this is not for my stated reason. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't understand your point re "finding" Project Apollo. Any user can type in e.g. space travel and find Apollo pretty much immediately. They can then decide for themselves whether it was a "success" or "failure". The list includes several entries that say "no replacement in sight" as sole validation for inclusion. This is simply not good enough for an encyclopedia. There is no consistent rationale for inclusion in this list, so it boils down to an editor's whim, and that's what makes it deletable as a NPOV/NOR failure. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep People have tolerated and loved these pages for quite a long time, why delete them now? I hate this attitude of running around looking for excuses to tear down other people's sandcastles. We should spend more time building more stuff like this, not tearing it down.--matador300 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No excuse, Wikipedia is big and people familiar with the AfD process or policy may not have seen it until recently. There is no excuse to keep bad articles. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are no "other people's sandcastles" in WP. No editor "owns" any of the articles, including this one. I disagree we should be creating more non-verifiable subjective lists in breach of official WP policies on original research and POV, sorry. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep MMx, the author of the delete request has shown a strong bias for destroying the work of others. He has substantially reversed the F-14 page to say that it was not and was never designed to be an air superiority fighter, categorically junking every cited source up to Janes Defence and Aviation week. You are only encouraging of this destructive behavior. I suspect MMx is tracking down related pages and putting in delete bombs as revenge, which should certainly not be enouraged. --matador300 10:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although you appear to have difficulties with Mmx1, mentioning them and asserting bias does not invalidate this discussion, particularly as the reasoning is quite cogent. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To user matador300 (i.e., Wiarthurhu), please don't mark all your comments with Keep/Delete, those bold-type indications are designed to help the admin, so should be asserted once per user per AfD. Thanks. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the obvious reasons above, but mainly verifiability and WP:NOR. It would be possible, theoretically, to assemble a list of engineering projects that have been labelled successes by someone--but that would be of doubtful value. A list of projects considered successes by Arthur Hu--with a decided bias towards his interests--is of even less value. · rodii · 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random, unsourced, original research. See Films considered the worst ever for the way do a list like this in a way that can surrive AfD. Eluchil404 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euthanise, these lists fail badly without well defined criteria (is something really a success if it sells well but is a piece of junk? Or if early success reverses? And so on and so on....) --iMeowbot~Meow 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

User has deleted the AfD notice[52] and moved the article to List_of_projects_considered_to_be_unusually_successful_in_science_and_engineering[53] Which is now worse. What's "usually"? Also, moving a page during AfD is bad form and so is removing the AFD notice. --Mmx1 16:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My issue is with the content, not the title. A change of title will not save this article from deletion for POV/NOR failure IMO. Please assume my comments apply to the new page(s). I would guess all other comments above should be considered the same way. The removal of AfD notice and this monkeying around seems to show a general contempt for the AfD process. --DaveG12345 16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if the title of the article were appropriate, which I dispute as "usually" only makes it more POV, wiki is permitted to delete an article to restart if the content is inappropriate. I don't think there's any doubt that the content is amateur, unsourced, and essentially the opinions of one editor. --Mmx1 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list can never be anything other than subjective. Subjectivity is fine in articles, as long as they're attributed to people, but there's no evidence of that here. Ziggurat 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely subjective. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tenenbaum[edit]

Unsourced article about a candidate in a local election in the US. Was tagged for speedy deletion, CSD-A7. However, whilst failing to assert notability for the candidate himself, I'm unsure on AfD precedent for candidates in US elections, so I'm happier to send it here for discussion. Technical nomination only, so no opinion from me.➨ ЯEDVERS 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note to closing admin: there is a redirect to this article at Michael tenenbaum that has some talk page activity. Consideration should be given to this. Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only notability is that he has been campaigning for congress, don't think that's enough to meet WP:BIO. Given the comment on the talk page, I might even suspect that the article was created to support his campaign. -- Koffieyahoo 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unelected congressmen are rarely notable. The area is not that far from where I live and I've never heard of him. If he is elected, an article of this size can be written in a few minutes. -- Kjkolb 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected, unsourced, contains crystal balling language. Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Longhair 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne International Arts Festival[edit]

A blatant ad, prodded and deleted and reposted. —Lamentation :( 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep very notable annual event, several Ghits reveal overseas references, no problems with having an article despite previous incarnations (but needs development), note AfD tag placed within 20 minutes of creation). SM247My Talk 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is a very large, very notable annual arts festival in Melbourne. See here. It's been running since 1986 and was part of the Spileto Festival series. The text in the article looks like it was copied from a brochure, but that's no reason to delete it, I think it should be tagged "advert" and rewritten. --Canley 10:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Canley. Jacek Kendysz 10:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the above. Tevildo 10:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Undoubtedly notable. Needs rewrite though. ViridaeTalk 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep, though I'm a bit concerned about the similarity between this article and the start of Melbourne International Comedy Festival. Were they both originally copyvios from a single source, or did the author of this article just base his on the Comedy Festival article? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have cleaned up and wikified the article and added references. Approximately 32,900 Google hits so notable festival in Australia. [54]

Capitalistroadster 11:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Canley and Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian calendar[edit]

It seems to be a promotion of an original research. Internet search did not show any reference to this bizar theory but the author's online book. Mgar 09:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete unless more convincing sources can be provided. There are a lot of crackpot scientific theories around, often supported only by their creators. The second link to archeometry.org makes more convincing arguments, but harpoons its own theories by stating that the accuracy of historical records of the timing and locations of eclipses makes it hard to confirm this theory, and ultimately that other factors can account for any apparent discrepancy. ~ Matticus78 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline weak keepChanged to delete or at most merge into Phantom time hypothesis, which is quite a notable crackpot-science phenomenon. Don't know how notable this particular hypothesis is in its contexts, as the article doesn't make that very clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete as per Artw below; notability of this particular crackpot theory is unimpressive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - this theory only seems to appear in a 2004 "e-book". Artw 22:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Artw. Szia. --Starionwolf 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and/or rename "Hungarian calendar hypothesis".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack De La Mare[edit]

Non-notable director, working on an unpublished fan film. Director or film not on IMDB, director's name gets 21 google hits none of which appears to be a particularly reliable source. Contested prod. Weregerbil 09:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latinic[edit]

Explained at Talk:Latinic. --Joy [shallot] 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination is for the article failing WP:OR. Tevildo 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for the time being. Googling for "Latinic" convinced me that the word is used fairly widely for Latin alphabet based scripts that have a one to one correspondence with Cyrillic alphabet variants. As you note on talk, we already have articles for the use of Latin alphabets for Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian. Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But notice how the Google results aren't from relevant, scholarly sources, but mostly some random sites. If you further narrow down the search to site:.yu, you'll only get 154 hits. For site:.hr, there's just 26 hits, and absolutely no hits for the same search on site:.bs. It's simply not a commonly used word, it's not used among the linguists, and it's pointless for us to promote it by having the article. It's like having a separate article for the misspelling cirilic (Cyrillic). --Joy [shallot] 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 38,000-odd results strike me as fairly significant: the word is used by some people, even if they aren't scholars. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to point people to where the information they seek can be found.
    Well, given the disparity between 38,000 and the 154+26+0, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Who are the relevant people using this word, if the native speakers aren't doing so on their sites, and English dictionaries don't do so, either? I also tried to check the latter part of those 38K hits, but for example this link to the results starting at #550 says "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 501 already displayed". So I'm not quite sure where the other 37,500 went. Spam fodder? --Joy [shallot]
    That's the way Google works. There's always an arbitrary cutoff. Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I knew that it never returns more than 1000 results to a query, but this thing threw me off. In any case I see little reason to believe that there are too many scholarly sources among the rest of these results we can't see. --Joy [shallot] 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some kind of Balkan ethnic conflict subtext in your perceived opposition to "promoting" the word? Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I resent that kind of a question - why should there be partisanship involved just because of my origin? We're all so uncivilized here on the bloody Balkans, and we can't argue about anything without prejudice and ethnic conflict, is that right? :P --Joy [shallot] 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do get weary when various unfamiliar nationalisms are exported to the English language Wikipedia. Let's face it, this seems to be a classic case for a disambiguation; "Latinic" does get some use --- maybe just a little, but some --- as the name for the adaptations of the Latin alphabet for several south Slavic languages, which within living memory were counted as one language. Because the word is used by somebody, we need to point people who come looking for it to the sources of current information, and if "Latinic" is thought wrong or inappropriate now, the reasons should also be explained. What we should not do is fear that such an entry "promotes" a word because it's the "wrong" word. Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is merit to your argument, but I still contend that it's too hard to work at articles where the title is a badly done direct translation of a local term into English and whose main content already exists elsewhere. It should be a disambiguation (more like dis-error-ification) page at most. --Joy [shallot]

Comment: for an amusing analogous case, see the article kreten. --Joy [shallot] 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mondrian Hotel Scottsdale[edit]

Substub that provides little to no content and appears to be platform to insert advertising link. Also fails WP:CORP which says the following:

Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores.

Therefore, delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While this is true for McDonald's and Holiday Inn, it is less so for luxury hotels, which spend a lot of money on being distinctive. In this case, the hotel's web site attempts to demonstrate distinctiveness and notability, and once the information from the site (but not the actual wording) is transferred to the article, then the article with assert notability. Some photos would help, but I don't expect any Wikipedian from Scottsdale will feel like taking any. The chain/franchise clause applies only if they are in fact "pretty much interchangeable". --TruthbringerToronto 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article asserts no notability for this hotel. It may be distinct from other hotels rather than a generic chain but that still doesn't make it notable encyclopedic material. Ydam 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP as no notability is asserted. --Coredesat talk 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -article contains no information. Artw 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). --Starionwolf 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also fails the proposed guidelines for notability of hotels. Pascal.Tesson 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per consensus. — Deckiller 11:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How I Became The Bomb[edit]

Local band. The few google hits make this pretty obvious. A few local reviews and a local music festival, not much else. Fails WP:MUSIC My vote is Delete Dipics 11:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, >1,000 Google hits is not always an accurate notability indicator. They satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria 5 - "Have been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". Kimchi.sg 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I should have worded my "google" remark more carefully. While I do feel that having few google hits is a reliable indicator for a group that aspires to be a popular band, my reference was to what the hits were saying. As was noted elsewhere, a very few local reviews. Local band in a local paper is not notable in my opinion. Dipics 16:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two lousy news google hits, both out of random Nashville papers says not notable - plus, it reads like an ad, which makes me angry. WilyD 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability requirements. WilyD, if you're angry, re-write the article! :p Parsssseltongue 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the Google hits from this band, it is obvious to me that they are just a small-time local band. They have had a couple of write-ups in local newspapers but local newspapers are often charitable to local bands. A few local gigs, a local festival. Nothing outside their immediate area that I can find at all. No more notable than any other band that has had a few gigs. Beaner1 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - Touring is NOT the ONLY criteria for notability. They have received notable press coverage, are playing a major event (Athens Music Festival) which is NOT a "local gig," and to dust off the dreaded Google count... 817 hits. Wiki guidelines say a few hundred are probably good enough. Parsssseltongue 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I waded through quite a few of the google hits. Nashville, like Austin down here in TX, has quite good media coverage of the local music scene. If you play any local gigs, it is going to be covered in quite a few local publications and no small number of "local scene" blogs. While this gives a large number of hits, if you read the hits, they tend to read like #5 on the How I Became the Bomb google hit list "did a photo shoot yesterday for the local band How I Became the Bomb." The words local band seem to run through the vast majority of the write ups. Since they (local media and blogs) cover pretty much all bands that get local gigs, this is not even an indicator of local notability. And, if you mean by "Athens Music Festival" you mean the Athens Popfest, this festival is specifically designed to be "all about the little guy" (from the website "Deerhoof, Mountain Goats, Oh-Ok Head Athens Popfest". Pitchfork. 31 May 2006. Retrieved 2006-06-28. ) Having read several dozen of the google hits, I would still keep my vote the same. Dipics 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Artw 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be local band only, with only local touring and reviews. --Joelmills 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beaner1 and Joelmills. --Starionwolf 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to satisfy notability requirements. Dsreyn 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfares[edit]

Looks like spam to me. See also Move.com from the same pen. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:CORP. In the first 5 pages of the google search all I found was one phrase repeated many times (advertising?) and similar. ViridaeTalk 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP --Ed (Edgar181) 16:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally tagged it only for notability. I still think that we could have left the tag there for a few days before going to the AfD but I agree that the article fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above; I'd been wary of this one before putting up the Move.com AFD, and I believe it had a PROD tag removed at some point as well, so this is probably a good move. Tony Fox (speak) 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails wp:corp and wp:web --Starionwolf 04:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy userfy. Just zis Guy you know? 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif Samir Samy[edit]

Not notable person. Only 1 google hit other than wikipedia [55]. The article was created by User:Sherif11 (probably Sherif Samy himself) as his only contribution to wikipedia.--Wedian 11:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy or Delete per WP:AUTO. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 11:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If this is his only contribution, I recommend against userfying so as to not allow the self-promotion to continue in the userspace. Otherwise it would mean their advert remains in the userspace which still associates it with Wikipedia (which is what most advertisers/promoters are after). Only userfy for people who actually contribute something useful. -Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mgm, as there have been no other contributions by this user elsewhere since. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- 9cds(talk) 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morley High School[edit]

This article is about a non-notable school. A google search for this school reveals about 281,000 pages, only about 25 of which are relevant to the school, 4 of which are run BY the school and the rest linking to Leeds Council, or the DfES. Does not imho qualify as encyclopedic.Thor Malmjursson 12:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it appears to meet guidelines in Wikipedia:Schools, but requires cleanup/sources - there is a lot of unverifiable information in there. ~ Matticus78 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Wikipedia:Schools says This proposal was rejected by the community.
  • Keep per Matticus78. --ElKevbo 12:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite an old school. Was a Grammer School (note that is an important High School not an Elementary School) and is notable enough for an article. However the content needs cleaning up. Fix not delete is the answer. --Bduke 13:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear past precedent to include all real and verifiable high schools. Article is in pretty good shape. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged for cleanup-school because it could use a good hard edit. Wikipedia:Schools guidelines are not applicable because they were never accepted by the community, but that said there is WP:SNOW chance this will get deleted, so I simply implore those who take an interest in school articles to clean this one up a bit.--Isotope23 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sjakkalle. PJM 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid High Schools. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs some work but definitely notable. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Pointless Delete. I ask myself why I bother. Maybe I've been out of high school too long. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, schools are not inherently notable (but an individual school can be notable), and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. Nothing in this particular article makes me think this specific school is encyclopedic. Agent 86 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, there is nothing pointless about stating your opinion, even if the majority disagrees.--Isotope23 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that reality check! In my profession, I've built up a high degree of cynicism, which needs to be shaken up once in a while. Agent 86 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. --Rob 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long standing precedent dating back to March 2005. Silensor 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice article, informative for our readers - we need more like this. --JJay 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand you wish to keep it based on the fact that it is a school article JJay, but calling this a "nice article" is a stretch. If I may quote: "Also there has been a crack down on fatty and high in sugar foods and fizzy pop and fast food cannot be purchased. However the overweight community of the school has gone on strike saying that they cannot deal without coca cola and fatty foods through out the day." We don't need more poorly written articles like this... We need decently written, factual articles. I slapped a cleanup tag on this for a reason and as I said above, I implore those interested in retaining school articles to clean this up because the article is a mess.--Isotope23 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's pretty easy to single out the worst line in an article and say it should be deleted. I prefer to look on the bright side with sections like In July 2001 the Arts Council awarded the school the Artsmark at the Silver level. The school was one of only three in Leeds and 13 in Yorkshire to be so recognised. Morley High School is a Specialist Technology College. I would also point out out that the nom did not complain about the writing style. If the issue is cleaning up the article, rather than "notability", it would be far easier to start with tags and the talk page, rather than AfD. --JJay 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nominator - The reason I did not complain about the writing style was that it wasn't the writing style that bothered me. It was the fact that the school appears to have nothing more notable than an "Artsmark". The school my adopted son goes to is a Business and Enterprise College. Does that mean that it qualifies for an entry here too??? I think not... Thor Malmjursson 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never said anything about deleting this based on the fact that it is poorly written JJay... I never said it should be deleted at all. I'm merely saying that calling this a good article is a stretch and in fact it is a pretty poor example of what a school article should be. For the record, I did tag it & post on the talk page since I am the one complaining about how it was written, not the nominator.--Isotope23 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (i) I said "nice article". I see six good lines of text, therefore I stand by that comment. We need more articles that start that way. Anything objectionable, perhaps the line you singled out, probably took 5 seconds to remove. I hardly think it worth talking about, because our only concern should be the validity of the topic. Furthermore, as a rule, I do not enjoy criticizing other people's contributions, nor do I view AfD as the right forum for content complaints - at the very least, the article talk page should be used first. For all I know, fatty foods may have been an issue that received media attention in connection with this school; (ii) nominator should submit an article on son's school. Even better, get son to write it. --JJay 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't criticize because I enjoy doing it... I'm simply pointing out when an article is substandard. Regardless, someone cleaned the article up rather nicely, maybe because they saw the talk page, maybe because they saw the comments here. Either way the article is much improved, which is the end result I wanted to see.--Isotope23 00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In that case, I expect to see you type "keep" extremely soon. --JJay 00:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Heh, and add my voice to the obvious outcome? No, I think I'll just abstain and let nature take its course.--Isotope23 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* Very reluctant keep, since any argument I make for deletion will be horribly ignored, and arguing to delete most school articles is a fruitless venture (even though WP:SCHOOL is not a policy) unless they happen to qualify for speedy deletion, which this one doesn't. Since it inevitably will be kept, it needs major cleanup. --Coredesat talk 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Matticus78. Joeyramoney 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Proud to fight the infantilising of wikipedia. -- GWO
  • Keep, as it seems to be a notable high school. Carioca 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Notable School, The Article needs cleaning up and Expanding. The preceeding unsigned comment was added by User:Thunderraichu - please sign your comments using 4 tilde's (~)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge with Hallmark Hallmark Cards, please click on the actual article to find out where it leads, it should actually be the latter, not the former. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoops & Yoyo[edit]

Looks absolutely non-notable, though can be mentioned in Hallmark main article. Nearly Headless Nick 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klapje[edit]

No vote procedural nomination. Blanked by well-meaning user with the edit summary "Completely incorrect information". Is it? I don't know. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Klapje" seems to be a fairly common Dutch word, but no Ghits for its use in this particular context. Probable hoax. Tevildo 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remarks. The information may come from this page: [56], which is from a site managed by Sedat Kapanoğlu. Apart from this notable person being a descendant of the family, I don't know of any other claim to fame for the Klapjes, if that is the right name. Or should it be "Klapije"? On Ekşi Sözlük there is an entry "klapije"[57], in which ssg, as Sedat Kapanoğlu is known on Ekşi Sözlük, writes (in Turkish: "The family name we used when in Yugoslavia." I see some hits for "Klapije", but can't decipher what they mean. --LambiamTalk 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable family. Having one notable family member doesn't make the whole family notable. --Coredesat talk 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-1500[edit]

I'm nominating this page for deletion for the same reason as P-1000, which was deleted last week: I have done several hours of research in the NCSU library trying to find information on these mega-ultra-superheavy tank designs and have found no mention of them. I don't feel it should be this hard to find reliable sources. I have only read about this tank on assorted tank fansites, and I've heard that it's mentioned in a couple of 50-80 page picture books of "crazy stuff the Nazis nearly built." I've also heard that it's described in some German texts, but the article does not cite those. The article in question only cites two amateur web sites as sources, and unless reliable sources can be cited the article should be deleted. I'm not advocating deletion of every article that doesn't cite reliable sources, but if I can't go to a university library and find a source, and the author can't cite reliable sources either, it doesn't belong here. TomTheHand 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination... not verified by reliable sources.--Isotope23 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with whom I'm impressed. No mere quick and dirty google searching for him! Agent 86 16:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same situation as P-1000. --Saucepan 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk 20:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't verify the cannon. --Starionwolf 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As one who rewrote, bona fide, the P-1000 page, I request that the executor of the verdict does their damn work properly and deletes any and all links to the article from the Wikipedia, otherwise some other poor schmuck will simply recreate them, bona fide, all over again. Furthermore, since the consensus seems to be that the absence of evidence is to be taken for evidence of absence, protection from recreation seems to be in order, since the online sources are fairly tempting. --Agamemnon2 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better yet, go ahead and remove the references to the P-1000 and P-1500 entirely if the simple existence of these tanks can't even be proven. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I took out most of 'em. Monster (tank) is eligible for SD once this AFD is closed. --Agamemnon2 07:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that the articles should be protected from recreation. I don't believe that absence of evidence should be taken for evidence of absence. Rather, articles should never be created relying solely on unreliable Internet sources when the existence of the article's subject is in question. If someone does dig up reliable sources, German or otherwise, the articles should be recreated using only information from those reliable sources. TomTheHand 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably true. These two are not entirely beyond the scope of possibility, it is a documented fact that the Third Reich had many military projects that went beyond the technological paradigmae of their time. Whether these two were ever entertained as anything more than thought experiments is another story entirely. I don't think they sprung out fully formed into the Internet, there was probably some truth, however twisted, behind the hoax. --Agamemnon2 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, it seems like fancruft at best. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Nazis did think of things way beyond their technological realm, but we can't verify that this existed as a planned project, nor is it a notable hoax/conspiracy theory, like this one is. Grandmasterka 08:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshirisation[edit]

Not a genuine linguistics term; coined as a one-off joke. Not a protologism since it was coined in 1991, but still Wikipedia does not need an article on a term that appears once in the linguistics literature. Delete. User:Angr 14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with James Matisoff. It's part of his work and something which is worth recording for those interested in him. Tyrenius 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Important idea but it's one mans idea, it belongs in his article. At the moment neither article is long enough to warrant two seperate articles Ydam 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Coredesat talk 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per above. Joeyramoney 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical reality[edit]

No concrete, verifiable claims of notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good luck guys, but wiki needs more widespread notability to merit inclusion. Tyrenius 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per google news says Less noteworthy use of the name than some random churchgroup. WilyD 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete useless article. Joeyramoney 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Productions[edit]

LJ Productions is a non-notable company. Furthermore, the article itself has an absurd number of random additions made to it. As an aside, the user who created the page has only made destructive edits elsewhere. EVula 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Addendum There is also a redirect[59] that would need deletion if the article is removed as well. EVula 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I struck my comments about random additions; it was stemming from the fact that someone had included Biography as a template. I still feel that the AfD nom is valid, though, as it is a non-notable company. EVula 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, non-notable company, none of the films are verifiable. I know the Western Kentucky Film Festival exists, but it doesn't even have a website, and the existence of the films this company entered into it can't be verified either. --Coredesat talk 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedmaster[edit]

Neutral I listed the article on behalf of User Feed, who gave the following reason : This article is written out of hate and resentment because of the author of this article refuse to accept that people do not agree with him that X-MEN movie are pro-gay propaganda. The arguement took place in an online forum and it is obvious that the article author is resentful and childish. Most of the information contained in this article, including name of people and movies are fabricated. Wikipedia ought to implement a mechanism to prevent people from abusing its site to spread lies and hate. The author of the article has also maliciously edited the article on the list of political parties in Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Malaysia) to include a Homosexual Party with the nick feedmaster. The intention is obvious and malicious. Does wikipedia has a policy of reporting to police such blatant abuse? Travelbird 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the assertion of Notability seems to be false, and the article seems basically to be made up. I may reconsider my vote if two things are done:
1) Some references are given, especially concerning the notability of Feedmaster
2) The article is rewritten to be more than vaugely intelligible.
WilyD 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My secret decoder ring is failing me. I can't tell if this is an attempt at humor or an attack or what, but, regardless, it needs to go. GassyGuy 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page, unless there's some reason why it wasn't just tagged as that in the first place. --Aquillion 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD-A6, attack page. --Coredesat talk 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD-A6 --Arnzy (whats up?) 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Luz Property[edit]

Fairly obvious advertising. Article makes no assertation of its nobility. Fails WP:CORP as far as I can see. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, original prod tag was removed. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't really tell. A search for "La Luz propoerty" (in quotes) on google returns 87 000 hits, but the company does not seem terribly notable. Maybe I'm missing something. —Mets501 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The google search is misleading as it brings up hits like "If you are looking for Costa De La Luz Property, then you should try Spanish Venture property", referring to the general Costa De La Luz area in Andalucía. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, advertisement that fails WP:CORP. It's fairly possible that they're using Wikipedia as a promotional tool (or they hired someone to do it), as the main editor is Bostonprops. --Coredesat talk 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:CORP guidelines. --Arnzy (whats up?) 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability --Starionwolf 04:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotic Wrestling Alliance UK[edit]

Non notable backyard federation NegroSuave 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Watkins[edit]

First, this reads like a press release, so I suspect vanity. Second, there are not a lot of google hits to back up the claims of notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per G4 by Gwernol. --Coredesat talk 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshock the Echidna[edit]

hoax - zero google hits, discussion supports that it is a hoax, many claims that it is a hoax, none claiming that is it valid Brian 15:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

It's definitely a hoax. I'm not one for spreading false information, I can verify it is 100% - You can tell right away by looking at the pictures of this "Sunshock the Echidna", they're badly edited. Plus the background of him is that typical of an unoriginal fan character. ----Lucky Winters 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutty P[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC despite claims in the article. Searching for the album title gives two (exactly!) hits [61], and the artist doesn't appear at AllMusic.com or amazon.co.uk. Mikeblas 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google News gives one hit, which is a story about someone else. In my books, that adds up to Delete - and how! WilyD 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable for the following reasons:
    • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
    • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
    • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
    • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Yeanold Viskersenn 18:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article doesn't document these claims. It enumerates some collaborations, but doesn't discuss their work product or describe them in any way. -- Mikeblas 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Article's creator seems to be rather the music afficionado (See his contributions), and does seem to meet a fair few points on WP:MUSIC - and let's not forget that Google is not the be all, end all! I'll throw my support behind him, seeing as it doesn't seem to be a vanity page. HawkerTyphoon 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. Interviewed on BBC News Online[62], and plenty of other good google hits. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu (arabic)[edit]

Originally PRODed by Crzrussian (reason was 'UE and dicdef?') and endorsed by Yanksox. I've deleted it, but the creator (Striver) has requested for it to be restored. I have restored it, but still think it should be deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is just a translation of an Arabic word. If it's important enough, put it in Wiktionary, otherwise delete it. —Mets501 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and cleanup - the article has been significantly improved. —Mets501 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ill try to improve it. --Striver 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs work, but is already quite informative. Park3r 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. If this gets cleaned up and made into more than just a dicdef, I'll change my mind. --Coredesat talk 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content is appropriate for a translation guide (more than just a dictionary definition), but not for an enyclopedia. GRBerry 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry, why is that not encyclopedic for a non-paper encyclopedia?--Striver 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is still dictionary content, not encyclopedia content. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary has a lead sentence of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide." This is elaborated upon at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide, where the lead sentence is "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used.". So far, this article has a dictionary definition introduction, a "Grammar" section and a "Uses" section ... this is nothing more than saying how the word is used. What is ok is the type of usage discussion at Freedom (philosophy) where it is explaining usage in many notable contexts, each of which has its own article. Wiktionary is the appropriate place, there the goal is to "produce a free, multilingual dictionary with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations." [Emphasis added.] GRBerry 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what you are proposing is not acutaly a "delete", rather a "transwiki"? --Striver 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:WINAD. Sandstein 07:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral', right now I see it as a dict def... but, I think it can be expanded to bring in cultural context making it encyclopedic. gren グレン 05:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (User:Redvers, please do not disrupt discussions in this way. If I discounted every line that began with "Keep" or "Delete", most AfDs would be blank) – Gurch 13:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Smith[edit]

This was speedily deleted several times, but the author has protested. I don't believe it falls under clear speedy criteria, as Googling shows some minor notability. I therefore undeleted it and am placing it here with no judgement or vote — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "no judgment or opinion", as AfD is not a vote. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be needlessly pedantic, a vote is a formal expression of preference for an option. All "deletes" and "keeps" are votes, whether or not the result of the debate is determined by a simple tally. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that here is the place to debate it, but AfD is not a vote. Using the word "vote", however you mean it to be taken, is counterproductive and weakens the AfD process. I'm also guilty of this in the past, until I discovered that the word "opinion" was both more accurate and more powerful in every context one would use it in on AfD. AfD is not a vote. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnoteworthy, unencyclopaedic guy, as far as I can tell. Byron Smith (baseball player) and Byron Smith (judge) would both be more encyclopaedic. WilyD 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Maybe an old encyclopedia? When I do a search on Google for "Byron Smith" I get 71,000 links, "Byron Smith"+baseball I get 516 links, "Byron Smith"+Judge I get 621 links, "Byron Smith"+everest 1460. Is a person's occupational stature (judge or baseball player) what makes or breaks them on wikipedia? The guy was live on Canadian national news for three months! For full disclosure, I am the original author.mark 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - in fact, news is a far better indicator of noteworthiness than google hits - hence my preference for the other two Byron Smiths, who are way more reported on. Their occupation is irrelevent. The guy was certainly not featured prominantly in the news - google news says zero hits for Byron Smith Everett - and he has never appeared in a Toronto Star article. That's zero notability, my friend, and makes the guy unencyclopaedic. WilyD 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment WELL for news coverage...I came up with 23 articles from the Toronto Star and it's sister papers. Including:
"LIVE FROM MOUNT EVEREST It could be the biggest television event since the..."
Toronto Star; Mar 17, 2000; pg. 1
Local climber on all-Canadian Everest team
Dan Nolan; The Spectator; Apr 24, 2000; pg. A.01
Albertan tries again to climb Mount Everest
Daily Mercury; Mar 25, 2000; pg. A.7
Going Up
The Spectator; Mar 18, 2000; pg. T.08
Canadians set to tackle Everest for climbing and broadcasting
John Mckay; The Record; Mar 17, 2000; pg. A.14
Also of note:
"The Everest 2000 Expedition receives extensive media coverage – in part because of the partnership with the official expedition broadcaster, CBC Newsworld, which receives daily live satellite updates from the team during its trek up the mountain."
To be honest, and not to cry, it takes constant nagging to keep and article from being deleted just because he happens to be a mountaineer and not a baseball player ("Byron smith"+baseball = zero hits in google news). This all seems to be a case of "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't think it's an interesting subject".
I was looking forward to contributing to wikipedia, but the way this has been treated has been very disheartening. About 4 speedy deletions for unremarkable people or groups?! That's not even a criteria for speedy deletion!
Please keep in mind the rough guidelines for testing notable. PLEASE READ IT!
He has passed the tests:
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.mwamsley 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The news articles by mwamsley show notability, as does Googling. BTW, mwamsley, are you going to vote? You're allowed to do that, even as the article's creator. Madd4Max 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment AfD is not a vote. Do not vote here. "Votes" will discounted by the closing admin. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My opinion is to keep. My reasons stated above, etc.mwamsley 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment AfD is not a vote. Do not vote here. "Votes" will discounted by the closing admin. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of these comments are plain votes, and they certainly will be counted by the closing admin. Please see your talk page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Gwernol 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De chateau[edit]

Delete Non-notable game map. Prod was removed without comment Gwernol 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been aware of the earlier AfD on Counter-Strike Maps. This is a Speedy Keep case, so I'm changing my opinion and closing it out. Gwernol 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The map is just as notable as the other featured in List of Counter-Strike maps. It is an official map in both Counter-Strike 1.6 and Counter-Strike: Source. This map has an equal amount of content as the others, but could be tagged as a stub, if lack of content is your concern. I was the person who removed the prod tag after spending an hour adding content, because as the tag reads "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." As far as I know, I followed protocol to the letter of the law, and yet we're served up for AfD. Does the nominator have a specific grudge against this map, this game, or me? David Bergan 15:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree that it is as notable as the other intergame maps, and believe that they are all derivative, non-notable fictional universe items that collectively should be deleted as autonomous articles; the coverage should end at Counter-Strike maps, Custom Counter-Strike maps etc., which can be appropriately expanded.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I see there was a previous nomination of all of these at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust which ended with no consensus. I'm not sure that it would be useful to have a second nomination, but I certainly would have voted delete, merge or redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And since that discussion, the articles have improved both individually and collectively. Are we going to go through this once every month? David Bergan 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement is not the issue. Better sourced, better written, but still cruft. However, I see no reason this should not be kept if the other, identically situated articles are to be kept, and until such time as they are re-nominated, if ever, striking my vote above because it's nonsensical under the circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust. - Sikon 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason to pick on this article in particular; in fact, it's more common than some of the other maps in the category. The already-reached AfD should be enough to keep all official maps at the very least. --Varco 17:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not advocate the keeping of all computer game maps, as can be seen in some of my nominations such as Vampirism Revolution and I would vote to delete seperate Battlefield 2 maps such as Great Wall (Battlefield 2 map), which doesn't even appear in the main game. I do however believe that official counter-strike maps should be kept due to their popularity, for the same reason why I think that Simpsons' episodes are notable, but episodes of The Thick of It isn't. Here's a comment from the first nomination that I made, "I believe that there are currently more players on de_nuke alone, than there are readers of Concerned or people interested in SK Gaming. However, I think anyone interested in SK Gaming or esports, would definitely find the maps on which these events are held to be interesting and encyclopedic." And I stand by that. More people know this map inside out than read a webcomic such as Concerned (another Half-Life universe byproduct) and that was easily kept. And it's not like I would just keep everything Counter-strike related either, things like Surfing (Counter-Strike) and Kreedz Climbing, I'd probably side on delete. A good indication of how popular Counter-Strike is can be seen here, right now, there are just shy of 200,000 players which is more than Empires, Dystopia (computer game) and GoldenEye: Source combined and multiplied by around 50. It's also slightly better than some of the other counter-strike map articles. - Hahnchen 17:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vic Viper 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - While it's definately not the most popular of the CS maps, why are we singling this one out? I think every _official_ cs map deserves its own page, simply because without such familiar and well-known maps, CS would simply not be CS. --Rake 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust. ~~helix84 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Bergen. Articles have already been nominated and no consensus reached last month, and they've only _improved_ since then. Wikipedia... not paper! Tmorrisey 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete + redirect to Jedi. Ian¹³/t 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Order[edit]

Non-notable group of gamers. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jedi, speedily if possible per nom --Pak21 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete redirect the title to Jedi. NegroSuave 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If I read the article history correctly, it was redirected once already. Perhaps a redirect and protect (if that is done) may be in order. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you do read the history correctly. There has recently been a group of vandals spamming both this page and Rome: Total War (for which "Jedi Order" is a clan) to get themselves mentioned. --Pak21 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I'd speedily close it myself as a redirect, but an admin needs to Protect it. It's been recreated many times. - Hahnchen 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: given all the problems seem to be from anon IPs, I'd suggest semi-protection instead. Cheers --Pak21 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, speedy if possible - It's been redirected to Jedi repeatedly, and one particular IP has been changing it. dcandeto 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What I mean above is that it's supposed to redirect to Jedi, and that one IP has been changing the redirect against consensus and the talk page. dcandeto 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Protect a clan with 15 members and no official website obviously isn't notable. This article SHOULDN'T be redirected as voted above as the clan plays games which are in no way related to Jedi (see article).--Andeh 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the redirect pre-existed the clan's involvement with it; there are many Jedi-related links that redirect through it. (I am abstaining due to prior involvement with this situation) --DarthBinky 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Jedi Order" is a well known term within the Star Wars universe; that's the reason for the redirect, not because this clan play any games related to the Jedi. Cheers --Pak21 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per above. — Deckiller 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Protect The clan isn't nearly as notable as the Star Wars organization of the same name. EVula 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect and protect, it seems the clan has hijacked this redirect. Very, very few gaming clans are notable. --Coredesat talk 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete send it to the dark-side. Artw 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to destroy the history, recreate as a redirect to Jedi, and semiprotect to prevent further changes. --ais523 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I like that idea. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why semi-protect? Is there any reason for Jedi Order to redirect anywhere other than Jedi? If so, make it semi-protected, but if there isn't, then there's nothing to stop one of the clan members from registering and doing all this again (I realize I'm opting for reality over good faith, I know, but I think its a valid concern). That said, I'm in favor of destroying the history. EVula 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The most obvious possibility I see is that Jedi gets big and split into two pages. As for why semi-protection, meta:Protected pages considered harmful; semi-protection is less bad than full protection. Also, semi-protection will give us a four-day (or whatever the lag time is), and logged in accounts can be blocked much more readily than anon IPs, especially as some of the clan members involved in this little stunt were on AOL IPs. Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree delete the page as an administrator, and block it, they deserve to be blocked but they are notable - go to Jedi-Order.blogspot.com. They apparently do have a website... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mechanismtongs (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: this user's contributions to Wikipedia have been almost entirely spamming for the clan or vandalism. --Pak21 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i belive this page should be allowed to continue as it is mearly giving information that is true and is not biased it does not encourage people to go on the web site it mearly says they have one and where it is this page should be allowed to continue with what it is doing and should not become a redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.39 (talk • contribs) .
  • pak with your fiasco on the presidental elections page you cannot talk. please stay away from my talk zone as u are saying racial comments about me because i am from china —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mechanismtongs (talk • contribs) .
  • Please look at article 31 of the EU's Human rights section. I shall accept a full apology in due course —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mechanismtongs (talk • contribs) .
"Article 31 – Powers of the Grand Chamber
The Grand Chamber shall:
  1. determine applications submitted either under Article 33 or Article 34 when a Chamber has relinquished jurisdiction under Article 30 or when the case has been referred to it under Article 43; and
  2. consider requests for advisory opinions submitted under Article 47."
I fail to see how this is relevant here. --Pak21 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it has its moments and shows the problems of wikipedia

pak please do not speak 2 me or i will destroy the world in 2 minutes with an atomic weapon hidden in north korea. believe me the consequences will damage wikipedia 4 life

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pseudo Philosophers[edit]

Non Notable Band as per WP:MusicNegroSuave 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Woods[edit]

Non notable Newgrounds Flash series. Winning the Newgrounds daily feature award, or daily 4th place doesn't give it any semblance of notability. - Hahnchen 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Needs to have been at least referenced outside of newgrounds to qualify Ydam 16:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN —Mets501 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiovance[edit]

Delete as failing WP:CORP and possible advertisement. Article was originally {{prod}}ed as an advertisement due to the relative lack of content and the excessively large accompanying logo. The article's creator did make an honest effort in reducing the logo size, but the article still provides no evidence of meeting WP:CORP guidelines. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 15:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would agree that this appears to fail WP:CORP unless the creater can make a case for it here Ydam 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-hit wonders in classical music[edit]

Please oh please can we delete this? I prodded a bit ago, and it was de-prodded. As the lead itself states, this article is completely subjective, has no good definition of what it really means (it seems to mean that "the man on the street" would only know one piece by these people), and is completely unsourced (WP:V). It was put up for deletion under slightly different title here, the end result of which was to redirect to One hit wonder. I hate to say it, but this article is one of the reasons experts make fun of us. It has clearly not gotten better with the time it's been given. Delete for the love of Pete. Mak (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this monument to public ignorance. AlexTiefling 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One man's one-hit wonder is another man's loved composer. It lists Offenbach, for crying out loud! I'm quite fond of a number of Offenbach pieces. You can't even use sales or chart positions to determine what is or isn't a "hit". Utterly subjective. ~ Matticus78 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hahnchen 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And delete the section on classical music in one hit wonders, which I might do myself. Ridiculous to extend a concept that only has relevance to popular music. hateless 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the article: "Classifying a one-hit-wonder in classical music is subjective". That really says it all. PJM 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article encapsultates everything that's bad about Wikipedia. BoojiBoy 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with everything above. Grover cleveland 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V and WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate delete If there are surveys or something of the like put out by the BBC, ABC or the like so that interested parties could score them, perhaps (then it would be more analogous to one hit wonder), but its a bit hard to measure this as it is classical music, for crying out loud. As it stands, pure POV (though I largely agree, especially about poor Pachelbel!) SM247My Talk 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, aside from the absence of good, verifiable data classical music doesn't fall into many of the same categories that, say, pop music does and this is one of those categories. This one's gotta go. Mr Snrub 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged Music Video[edit]

Totally nn newgrounds flash. Gets 16 Google hits and won a Newgrounds Daily 5th place award! WOW! - Hahnchen 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep -- 9cds(talk) 15:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line "A" Branch[edit]

Are tramlines notable? Computerjoe's talk 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They sure as hell are. --SPUI (T - C) 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is full of tram/railway lines. Don't delete one unless you want to delete them all. —Mets501 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I normally vote to delete articles like this, but this one seems to be notable, and has some historic significance. --Coredesat talk 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Coredesat. Artw 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure! Wikipedia's got loads of articles on them. Green Line "A" Branch is in Category:Green Line (MBTA) which in turn is in Category:Presently operating light rail or streetcars in the United States. That's in Category:Streetcars in North America, from which you can go to Category:Streetcars and then Category:Tram transport. Keep Fg2 08:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a historical perspective, it needs re-writing and probably half-a-dozen other things --Richhoncho 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a bostonian- This is very historically significant to boston, this was one of 5 original green lines- And even from an ongoing perspective, i cant tell you how many times ive heard people remark "B, C, D, E... Why isnt there an A line?" when looking at the maps. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Lanoitarus say "Where is the A line?" is a very common question. Even if trolley lines generally aren't notable, this one is by virtue of the fact that it not longer exists but is still part of the naming scheme. Spikex 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep and to answer the nom, yes, tram lines are quite notable. Jesuschex 02:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted by (aeropagitica). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Routes In Brentwood[edit]

Buscruft Computerjoe's talk 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted at the group nomination, I just have to say though that this is the first time I've ever seen the word "buscruft" :-) —Mets501 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See group nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus Routes In Braintree. Mrsteviec 16:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. File this under axiomatic: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not express an opinion here. This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus Routes In Braintree

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Escapist/Issues[edit]

This is an article split off from The Escapist. Basically, table of contents for each issue of the webzine. I'm not sure if this is really needed - this would qualify for the "list of loosely associated Stuff" in my opinion. Besides, we don't have need to cover this for any other magazine/webzine either - and in the ocassion we cite the magazines, we already mention which issue the thing came from, so we don't need a WP-based index either... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A table of contents index is indiscriminate. If each episode of the webzine deserved an article, that would be the next level of notability to consider. This is one step or more removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate info. --Coredesat talk 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Artw 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it? Maybe merge it with the main article on the actual publication?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil360[edit]

No indication of notability, vanity/self promotion, crystal ballish. Quote from the article: "the Devil360 website has not been updated since 2006-06-07 and most pages are "Coming soon..". This chip may not exist or never surface." Doesn't really deserve an article until it actually exists. Also I'd just like to mention that I found a news article on a games related website about it[63]. And I received 50,300 253 (corrected by Fuhghettaboutit) g-hits. It may be notable but the fact that it's purely speculative/crystal ballish and that this article is linked to from the main page of their website is evidence of vanity, thus making it a candidate for deletion. The page creator has 7 edits, 6 of which are to Devil360.--Andeh 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a redirect:[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Gwernol. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshock the Echidna (character)[edit]

hoax, copy of hoax page Sunshock the Echidna Brian 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creat Mansion[edit]

Non notable flash game? I can't actually find the game itself, although the article links to a newgrounds music page. Certainly not a professionally developed game and gets 30 Google hits. - Hahnchen 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN —Mets501 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the creator of the page only has edits to it, so V for Vanity. Per nom.--Andeh 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Also, WP:VAIN is for vanity. (kidding :P) --Coredesat talk 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Mathematics education – Gurch 13:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics major[edit]

This article is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Delete —Mets501 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. All the text after giving definition is random opinion.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Allen; it is a fairly likely search term--Fuhghettaboutit 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to mathematics education. Legit search term, I can imagine a lot of college sophomores wondering what Wikipedia has to say about this. --Allen 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Allen. Delete the current content before creating redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 09:31Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

喆[edit]

I'm not sure if there is a policy on these kinds of articles, but since no other article links to this and few users will have the ability to type Chinese characters, this article and the other one (below) seem to have very limited pratical value. Travelbird 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn SinoCharDef. 1971s Zhongwen Da Cidian (Great Dictionary of the Chinese Language), lists 49,888 characters. Let's not open the floodgates.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too small, no real value as written. If someone were to expand upon it's etymological significance, that would be another issue. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd appreciate a bigger article though. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with (User:mets501) - David Humphreys 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would appreciate a bigger article, but with an English language title. Smerdis of Tlön 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially a dicdef, no real significance stated, bad title (in the unlikely event this is kept, it needs to be renamed). --Coredesat talk 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious (?) reason. SM247My Talk 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary handles this sort of thing much better. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

张喆[edit]

for reasoning see above nomination Travelbird 17:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated in previous.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too small, no real value as written. If someone were to expand upon it's etymological significance, that would be another issue. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a superior article at Zhang (surname), and this is the English language Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially a dicdef, no real significance stated, bad title (in the unlikely event this is kept, it needs to be renamed). This is the English Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious (??) reason. SM247My Talk 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary handles this sort of thing much better. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete Zhāngzhé is the romanized title. It is a popular name. --Kunzite 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cockue frog[edit]

no Google hits for "Cockue frog", likely vandalism/hoax Travelbird 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax/nonsense/vandalism. —Mets501 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G1 - patent nonsense. And yes, this is patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense, so tagged. NawlinWiki 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be something called a "Coque frog" which Hawaii County Council is trying to eliminate [66] --Henrygb 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coque frog (pronounced "ko-kwee") is apparently real; but this page is still nonsense (it says the frog is a salamander?) —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:57Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Layth Rowles[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - Zero Google hits. BlueValour 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ickes[edit]

Bio. Vanity Entry. Kf4bdy 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete per consensus of all people except for the creator. — Deckiller 11:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Hetz[edit]

Not a notable person. Never elected to public office, currently running as a 3rd-party candidate for a party that hasn't won any statewide offices in over 50 years.--M@rēino 17:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Stanley Hetz may be running as a 3rd party candidate, but he did win a party's nomination to run for major office. People should be able to find out what he stands for. Other 3rd party candidates should also have information on this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayettediscussions (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. If he does get elected, he can have an article then. Also fails WP:NPOV ("...more and more observers..."). --Coredesat talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I thought about this some more, and I'd like to say that there are articles on Wikipedia about other 3rd party candidates on here that haven't won office either. I think that there should be MORE articles on here about such candidates (not less). I can understand if Wikipedia staff doesn't want to write up an article about a particular individual, but I didn't have a problem in writing one up. I think that there should be more articles on here about candidates running for major office. I have found some great ones on here about some candidates, and then frustrated when I couldn't find articles about others. Well, that's my two cents. Thanks for listening. Fayettediscussions 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Summerland[edit]

Delete most probably blatant nonsense, but I wanted to post it here just in case there is some legitimacy to this Travelbird 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Move to "Summerland" A quick web search shows that this poorly written and unsourced article is accurate.--Nick Y. 17:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment cleaned it up a bit and added the sources I found. Also based on what I found this may not be the best namespace.--Nick Y. 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I checked the links you added, and in fact it does seem to be legimate. The article needs further cleanup though. Travelbird 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could an italicised disambig link to Summerland fire be added? This was a highly notable Manx disaster concerning the Summerland holiday centre of 1973. (Summerland was rebuilt but has since been demolished). David | Talk 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the nom was withdrawn, we're done here. The discussion can continue over on the talk page. I won't close this myself if someone wants to move it. --Coredesat talk 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to EBaum's World. Oldelpaso 08:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Bauman[edit]

Neil Bauman is not notable in any context outside of EBaum's World, and despite the article having been created six months ago, it currently bares little resemblance to a biography of any real substance. It's practically been turned into a platform for YTMND members to pay him out. I suggest that the article be deleted and replaced with a redirect to EBaum's World. -- Netsnipe 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per nom. He is about as notable as Eric Bauman, who already redirects to the EBaum article ~ Matticus78 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, not notable outside of EBaum's World. --Coredesat talk 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. It's starting to look a lot like an attack page, too - best to keep all the EBaum/YTMND/Newgrounds sniping confined to one page which can be cleaned up more easily. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above.--Andeh 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Enclave (Computer Gaming Community)[edit]

Gaming clan. Sort of borders on spam, doesn't establish notability. Zoz (t) 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. —Stormie 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete. they are a historic gaming community that has been featured in PC gamer uk. honestly you bastards don't delete it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.7.92 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 July 2006.

I could be wrong about this..Wikipedia is renowned for its vast knowledge of seamlessly internet data. That is a huge compliment. To delete something such as Gaming...from your wikipedia articles, is like tearing words out of the dictionary. You want to be renowned for having information on everything, then do just that. If you want to take it a step further maybe make a whole subject area to gaming. You could pioneer the way for the worlds first Gaming Database...or, you can be nazi's and delete the 3 KB file taking up all that space on your servers in hopes of making more room for pointless articles such as woman's implants. I think this paragraph says what I want it to, so in conclusion. WE like you. I like you. My term paper and my college research papers liked you. Don't make me turn to www.questia.com. Adieu.

Mistwraith~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistwraith (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 July 2006.

Comment: First of all, do not remove the AfD tag or our comments here. Secondly, you are free to provide reliable third-party sources (not the clan's HQ), and media coverage (not links to forums) to establish its notability. --Zoz (t) 10:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masih Khybari[edit]

Hoax & vanity article. Claims to be a 17 year old heart surgeon Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom...obvious hoax. PJM 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparent hoax. This article needs to be beaten with an axe handle, then rolled up in a carpet, thrown off a bridge into a river and the river then hurled into space - can someone see to that? WilyD 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need to go that far, a simple use of cement shoes will do the trick. Wildthing61476 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX and WP:HOLE (though the latter isn't policy, I figure I might as well throw it in since we're talking about ways to destroy the article). --Coredesat talk 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tend towards the Hoax assessment -- such rubbishy boasting could hardly be in earnest. 17 years old, and says "the Khybari method of transplantation is believed to be eventually considered for a Nobel Prize nomination." -- ImpuMozhi 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but good for WP:BJAODN. Funny, gave my friends a laugh¬ --Sunholm(talk) 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, I am going to be bold and delete all these redirects to clear out this day's AfD log. I took a look at each redirect, and they were all a result of page moves: there is no meaningful article history, so deleting these redirects doesn't break any GFDL requirements, and since the target of these redirects will likely be deleted via AfD in a few days anyway, I don't see any harm in deleting these redirects. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Superpowers - Russia[edit]

One of many articles (5 in total, also nominated here) all redirecting to Russia as a major power. The titles of these articles are all variations on the theme of Russia becoming a superpower. None of them have any content and none are significantly linked to. The Russia as a major power article is itself fairly dubious (WP:OR), although I don't propose to deal with that here. But the Russia (note, Russia - not USSR) as a superpower thesis seems to be entirely OR.

Given this, the fact that they are all redirects (some are multiple redirects), and the fact that they are not linked to from other articles, I suggest their removal.

For the above reasons I am also including the following pages in this nomination:

Xdamrtalk 17:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nomination, Xdamrtalk 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no opinion just yet, but this was AfD'd with a whole slew of other articles a few months back that were (well sourced) speculation about a whole myriad of countries from China to Brazil emerging as superpowers. I'm not suggesting all of those be included in a mass nom, but if this gets deleted the rest of them should probably be brought for individual AfDs.--Isotope23 20:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left notes on the talk pages of the following articles, suggesting afd's on grounds of OR:
I envisage making the nominations within the next day or so, depending on reaction.
Incidentally, I'd appreciate guidance on whether this would be better dealt with as an RFD case.
Xdamrtalk 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and move to RfD, since these seem to be defective redirects and not actual articles. --Coredesat talk 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The target of these redirects, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia as a major power, will be eligible for closing in a day or to, and is heading towards 'delete' at time of writing. The closing of this AfD might as well wait until then - there's no point in removing AfD notices from articles that are about to be deleted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Naughton[edit]

Non-notable candidate for public office, if she were to win, she would be notable. Possible vanity as well

  • Delete per nom. Mere candidate for sub-national office is not notability. David | Talk 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name is tagged on other pages. Provision of more information should not be something deleted. (Unsigned comment by 151.203.74.130 - 1st edit. BlueValour 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO - candidates are not notable. BlueValour 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dubious notability even if elected (there are thousands of state legislators). Definitely not notable as a candidate. Fan1967
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBA expansion potential[edit]

Pure speculation, original research, not backed up by official sources (see talk page). As a side note, it touts city population, when there are probably many complex factors used to determine the expansion potential of an area. Punctured Bicycle 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Phillips[edit]

He doesn't seem to be very notable. He has given some talks at conferences and visits abroad (as many academics do), is writing a book, but what else? A page with this title was deleted in July 2005, that Afd discussion is here. Of course, that might have been for a different Jon Phillips as I imagine there are quite a lot of people called Jon Phillips in the World. Jll 13:39, 21 June 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, W.marsh 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks a bit like my brother's resume, but a little weaker. fails notablility--Nick Y. 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia isn't the place for personal resumes. --Coredesat talk 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of Chester (Shorebirds), Birds of Chester (Passerines), and Birds of Chester (Waterfowl)[edit]

A related article, Birds of Chester (Near Passerines) was deleted as original research; see its AfD. These two articles seem to be of the same kind. (Liberatore, 2006) 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as does Birds of Chester (Waterfowl). Let's nuke all three. SP-KP 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't spot that one, thanks. Added to the nomination above. (Liberatore, 2006) 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: reads like very inchoate notes for a bird guide. Suggest author take it to his personal website and add a link to Chester. ---CH 00:56, 22 June 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, W.marsh 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was given the consensus that this article should not exist on its own (but not quite enough for outright deletion), redirected to National Youth Rights Association. Nothing to merge that I can see, as biographical information doesn't belong in the organisation's article and "Reynolds has worked with local politicians to lower the voting age" is a bit, well, obvious when put in that context. The history is still there if anyone disagrees. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reynolds[edit]

  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. None of this first page of google hits are for this individual. Google news searches for "robert reynolds" and "robert reynolds youth" return no result. Only sources cited in article are the organization's self-created website. Seems like vanity. Wikipedia is not a repository for every student leader or self-proclaimed "activist" Captaintruth 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search for the combination of "Robert Reynolds" and "youth rights" turned up 2260 matches, and I found a case of mainstream coverage here. Dsreyn 17:20, 23 June 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, W.marsh 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A source Three sources (articles from Newsweek, San Francisco Chronicle, and Boston Globe) have been added. Dsreyn 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mentions in three two year old news articles (only one about him, the other two just quoting his comments) do not establish notability. Captaintruth 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe User:Eluchil404 asked for notable and reliable sources, so I provided a few. I assumed this was essentially an objection to an unsourced / unverified article, rather than a request for hundreds of Google hits, and three references seemed sufficient to establish a factual basis for the article. You thought a school board member in Florida (Robert D. Parks) was significant enough to be worthy of an entry (which you created, and has no other contributors), yet someone with legitimate press coverage is not? Looks like you are applying the notability guidelines rather selectively. Dsreyn 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main NYRA article. --Folksong 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next 6 Exits[edit]

Fails WP:Music only 922 google hits for "Next 6 Exits" starting mostly with wikipedia, other redirects to wp and message boards. They appear to be defunct as of March 2006 as they wrote on a BB "Well, folks…it is official that the proverbial bullet has been put in the slowly dying horse that was Next 6 Exits." signed "N6E, ramblings of a wannaberockstar" *Delete Nick Y. 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oilfight[edit]

Page appears to have been created and deleted previously, as evidenced by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oilfight. This page reads like an advert, and an advert of a totally non-notable website at that. Thus I propose deletion. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposition: It is true that we have been deleted previously. We use this page, however. It is a helpful guide to turn to for our noobs. -Raptriforcee
    • Comment: If you want a guide for your "noobs", copy it to another website, not an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, it's an encyclopedia. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the article is apparent advertising, and admittedly produced and run by the creators of the website. If article created by creators of the website isn't the most obvious clue of a need for deletion, article created by members of band is. But this article still needs to be deleted, with fire. WilyD 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol....with fire! --Brad101 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I helped write this as one of the players of this game, the game creators only wrote a small portion which we did not have all the specifics of, most was created by fans and players of this game. -hagendazman
  • Delete per nom, WP is not a game how-to manual, nor a free webhost for a gamesite. Tychocat 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plea Why can't the world know about Oil Fight? This can be a WP-valid article. We just need to tweak it. -Anonymous
  • I am listening. I just want you to know there are other sites like this that you refuse to try and delete. Ours is just like it. You definitely have some bias against Oil Fight.
  • Delete unless sourced from reliable third-party sources. Kotepho 06:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as requested by author —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 09:27Z

Murder At Canal Basin[edit]

elaborate hoax Travelbird 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax, and I have seen it. It's just a local cult film. Tspydr10 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Hence why it is a non-notable film and worthy of deletion. Wildthing61476 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot of non-notable stuff on WIkipedia, I mean look at The Fighting Cocks, it has almost nothing on it and doesn't even say the band members full names. Also I think since it is a cult film it derserves being there. Tspydr10 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is indeed a notable 'cult' film then the article needs to provide independent sources to confirm said notability. At present I can find no such evidence by doing a google search for the title of the film. DrunkenSmurf 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Before we can even discuss whether it's a notable cult film, we first have to verify that it even exists. I can find no reliable source to even confirm that. A 14-year-old's vanity page on tripod doesn't qualify. Fan1967 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not verifiable. In addition, The Fighting Cocks was marked for speedy deletion. --Coredesat talk 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it, it actually is a "film" but i guess it isn't significant. But i didn't create a hoax or anything. I actually revert vandalism I find. Tspydr10 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Treese[edit]

part of above hoax Travelbird 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above Wildthing61476 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the associated Afd I can find no evidence of notability for the creator of this film. DrunkenSmurf 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has a page he created on tripod.com, just like about a million other 14-year-olds. If he made a film, there's no indication anyone's seen it. Fan1967 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a hoax, but still not notable. --Coredesat talk 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Wrestling Federation[edit]

Incomplete nom from June 21. Nominator's justification (added to article instead of this page) was "No intrest to anyone." No vote. Make that no opinion. Not a vote. Sorry. -- Vary | Talk 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Philwelch t 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellion on Kamino[edit]

The information on this article is detailed, providing information on almost every single minor wave of enemy the player faces. Moreover, this is not a story driven game. However, I would support a couple of sentences put toward a story section on Star Wars: Battlefront II. Plus, this sort of detail is not even used in movie summaries or entire 40 hour-long RPG summaries. Clearly worth deletion. — Deckiller 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mostly fancruft; what few parts are not are already in the main Battlefront II article. Kafziel 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. --Coredesat talk 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft. Artw 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it isn't a strategy guide. BFII is part of the expanded universe and the battles deserve mention. Superior1 09:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please read WP:FICT, which states that plot summary and synopsis belong in the main article, not seperate articles. We are going through many the battle articles and merging or deleting them for the sake of maintaining an encyclopedic feel to this section of the site. At the very least, the article must be merged to follow the path lit by WP:FICT. — Deckiller 14:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn -- Samir धर्म 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Avenue (New York City)[edit]

Delete. I prodded this as a "minor street". Deprodder wisely reminded me that it's not minor. My fault, I shoud have been clearer: "Very long street in two outer boroughs of NYC with absolutely nothing going on." Article sets a dangerous precedent.- CrazyRussian talk/email 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Will close when no Delete votes are left. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong Keep - Nominator lacks perspective on the topic. Myrtle Avenue is by no means a minor street, obvious by the fact that it spans many neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens (CrazyRussian so nonchalantly calls "outer boroughs"). If we erase this article then we set up an even more dangerous precedent: one that concerns itself only with the surface phenomenon (that the article isn't developed yet) and blindly fails to see the potential down the road. In other words, just because the article is a stub now, doesn't prove that a New Jersey resident can fairly say "nothing is going on" there. This should've been discussed before nominating here, after I de-PRODed. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the article isn't developed yet is not what brought this nomination. It's that the street is not developed yet. And no Jersey discrimination please - Brooklyn is the ancestral home of the crazy Russians, you know that...! - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not hating on Jersey, I got family there too. But, I have to disagree with your observation of Myrtle Ave being "not developed", espcially in the areas of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. Myrtle Ave has been changing a lot, increasingly becoming a main street of commerce as a result of the college students who go to Pratt Institute, and the recent real estate boom and popularity of living in Brooklyn. [67] --Howrealisreal 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added more content to the article, and I intend to include more as long as it's still around. --Howrealisreal 00:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know what would help? Any movies/plays about it? Any songs? "Meet me at Myrtle Avenue"? Is it the most something or the widest or the longest? If the answer is no, it's probably NN. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Myrtle Avenue is referenced in a lot of rap songs. --Howrealisreal 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The basis for keeping is based upon connecting two other notable subjects? I realize that's a factor in WP:MUSIC, but it really doesn't apply in this case. If this was true, someone whom taught a notable person in grade school could merit an article. Also, another basis for keeping is based on the potentional for notability. This is so a crystal ballism, Wikipedia takes record of notability that has occured, not notability that will not or has yet to occur. Yanksox 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see the point of this. Artw 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. The avenue connects things, like any road, but no notability in and of itself stated or implied. Maybe I'll move there, but it's still nn. Tychocat 00:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The current version of the article focuses too heavily on Brooklyn. Myrtle is particularly important in Ridgewood, Queens; one of two main commercial shopping districts in Ridgewood (other is Fresh Pond Road). Traffic jams are present in the daytime, and traffic drops off dramatically after businesses close. The Q55 bus that runs along the street can be standing-room only during rush hours to and from its terminus at Myrtle–Wyckoff Avenues station, and that station is one of the busier L line stations in Brooklyn. How do I know? I live in Bushwick/Ridgewood on the Brooklyn side, not too far from Myrtle. I am also familiar with the road through Queens and Brooklyn. It's the main thoroughfare in Glendale, Queens - see that article. It runs through MetroTech Center. Historically, the street's notable: the Jamaica Plank Road (as it was known) existed before the communities were built. As for expanding the article, I can't think of anything else other than what I said above. I will try to improve on the article, but only after further discussion.
  • Crzrussian (and others), if I may ask, what are your minimum requirements for a "major avenue"? And what does the Wikipedia community say about what is a "major street" (other than state routes, county routes, etc.)? Tinlinkin 12:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot speak for others, but I think numbered state routes are always OK, but individual streets require a showing of notability. Generally, only the most famous streets in the biggest cities get included. Thus, Manhattan has 100, and Brooklyn has 10. I think that's about right. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Tinlinkin for adding another perspective. I instinctually started with information on the Fort Greene/Clinton Hill side of Mytrle, because that is what I am most familiar with. Your information about the Queens side, I think demonstrates that Myrtle is longer and more influential in communities than most other mundane streets in Brooklyn. It should be kept in Wikipedia; Please feel free to be bold and expand the article. --Howrealisreal 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Myrtle Avenue may not be much today, but it does follow the path of the Myrtle Avenue and Jamaica Plank Road (also called the Brooklyn and Jamaica Plank Road, or just the Jamaica Plank Road) which was created in 1853/1854. There is information available on this historic road, and if this article had more on its history it would be greatly improved. Is it a great article as is? No. Will it be a Featured article one day? I doubt it. Does it deserve to be deleted? NO. We need to develop clearer criteria for inclusion of roads that goes beyond can anyone sing a few bars of "I Left My Heart On Myrtle Avenue." Alansohn 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major street in a major city, although we obviously need articles on most streets given their histories and the fact that things go on there. The only dangerous precedent is the wanton use of a prod tag and AfD. --JJay 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If the largest roads in certain cities are allowed to exist, then Myrtle Avenue certainly deserves to stay. It is a very prominent avenue crossing and influencing many neighborhoods including my own, Ridgewood. It is one of the most significant places to us I know from experience. Sorry if this is more anecdotal than anything, but we refer to it as "The Avenue", like we refer to New York City as "the city". It also has a very rich and detailed histroy, that unfortunately has not been elaborated on this page.
  • Keep per above. An56 04:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. While the consensus is not clear on this article, the Rebellion on Kamino AFD was based on the same arguments, and by appropriate weighting of the arguments given, the proper result is deletion. — Philwelch t 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mustafar[edit]

The information on this article is detailed, providing information on almost every single minor wave of enemy the player faces. Moreover, this is not a story driven game. However, I would support a couple of sentences put toward a story section on Star Wars: Battlefront II. Plus, this sort of detail is not even used in movie summaries or entire 40 hour-long RPG summaries. Clearly worth deletion. — Deckiller 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,I do not see a strategy guide. Dudtz 6/30/06 3:01 PM EST
Maybe, but it's also excess summary of a mission in the game Battlefront II. In that sense, it violates WP:FICT number four, espesially given the fact that the battle is summarized in two sentences on the main article. — Deckiller 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it isn't a strategy guide. BFII is part of the expanded universe and the battles deserve mention. Superior1 09:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please read WP:FICT, which states that plot summary and synopsis belong in the main article, not seperate articles. We are going through many the battle articles and merging or deleting them for the sake of maintaining an encyclopedic feel to this section of the site. At the very least, the article must be merged to follow the path lit by WP:FICT. — Deckiller 14:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, just like the others. — Philwelch t 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Naboo[edit]

The information on this article is detailed, providing information on almost every single minor wave of enemy the player faces. Moreover, this is not a story driven game. However, I would support a couple of sentences put toward a story section on Star Wars: Battlefront II. Plus, this sort of detail is not even used in movie summaries or entire 40 hour-long RPG summaries. Clearly worth deletion. — Deckiller 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please read WP:FICT, which states that plot summary and synopsis belong in the main article, not seperate articles. We are going through many the battle articles and merging or deleting them for the sake of maintaining an encyclopedic feel to this section of the site. At the very least, the article must be merged to follow the path lit by WP:FICT. — Deckiller 14:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 08:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous successes in science and engineering[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable list with a generic inclusion criteria of "famous" and "success". Basically a page to hype up one's favorite pet projects. No continuity between topics. Some attention should also be given to List of famous failures in science and engineering. While I can think of possible sources for the latter, what sources are there for this?

To preserve the integrity of the vote, this is not a joint nomination for the "failures" article, but if there is interest, I'll put that up for AfD as well. Mmx1 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep MMx1, to quote one Daffy Duck, you... are... despicable. Don't take your F-14 anger to ruin other WP articles. Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied by editing, Mmx has shown serious judgement failure in the past. He has appointed himself final arbiter of truth on the F-14, see talk on F-14 even though he refuses to recognize any citations contrary to his POV up to Janes Defence, and a VP of Grumman. He has simply followed a link at the bottom of the F-111 page, from the F-14 page, and is simply another example of removing material from the WP without justification. This page is obviously well trafficed and edited, and of use to many people. WP states that deletion of information which does not improve WP is vandalism. His intent is to knock down other people's carefully constructed sandcastles, not improve the WP. In my opinion, this is exactly what Mmx1 is attempting to do. Please do not support this behavior.--matador300 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I've separately nominated *Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_failures_in_science_and_engineering.

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)

  • Strong Keep Observe that lists like this are not banned. Here is a list that has been kept 3 times.--matador300 14:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in every possible way. The group of songs listed seems very random, and there are several listed that I would definitely not consider the worst ever. At the end of the day, there is no way this article can be NPOV. Many of the songs follow with explanations of why the user PERSONALLY feels the song is one of the worst ever. This article is mostly original research. I don't see it being useful in any way, as it will always be filled with personal opinions and views. --Musicpvm 01:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC) This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November, 2005. The result was "keep". This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2005. The result was "keep".

  • Delete. Smacks of WP:OR, and is listcruft. --Coredesat talk 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there a list of obscure successes? Infamous ones? Daniel Case 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV (same applies for List of famous failures in science and engineering which can probably be discussed with this one. SM247My Talk 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, famous NPOV failures in WP. Reader should be able to read articles and decide for themselves whether they are successes. Project Apollo is declared a success, no way is that a universally accepted "fact", there are way too many complexities for such a glib assessment. WP is no place for introductory statements like "the failures are well remembered, but perhaps not enough has been said of humble designs that were destined for greatness, and stubbornly refuse to die of obsolesence." Per nom, the problem is the success criteria used - inherently problematic, so cleanup will solve nothing. --DaveG12345 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual list entries are oversimplified and have weird POV issues. This seems more like one person's opinion than an encyclopedic entry. Rob Banzai 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I gave this article a brief cleanup at one point, but now this article doesn't seem all that encyclopaedic; it has problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and so it's probably better just to delete it. Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- Alias Flood 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Are you guys nuts? This was created by me as a success mirror to the failure page. POV is not judged by the article, only that a large number of people have judged a project or product to be a spectacular success. There are many pages like this listing articles and objects that are most or least of something, and routinely done by journals such as Car and Driver for automobiles. I would much rather have a WP inclusive of these sort of pages than invoke a ban. Surely WP would not object to a list of most famous authors, top grossing movies, or most important events in the 1970s. Many entries show successes that were intially failures. If you kill the science success / failure pages, you'll also have to eliminate the similar list of computer flops, movie flops, governemnt flops, education flops, and sports flops. I don't think you can delete this page unless you can show a WP category ban for this sort of thing. If there is a ban, you'll have to enforce it across all topics, say so in the Wiki documentation in the appropriate list of what not and not to include in WP, and WP will be much poorer for it. I was about to nominate the J79 engine as a success, but you folks are going to take it all way. PlEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ don't kill it.--matador300 10:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Things like top-grossing movies and the like are objectively verifiable based on takings and profits. This is a big list of unencyclopaedic personal opinions and depend inherently on the viewpoint of the reader or editor. I am sure we would object to lists of the most important 1970's events and dicsussions of who is the most 'famous author' as these labelling exercises depend on no objective basis and are not informative. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles are not directly cited, but link to articles that either are cited, or aren't cited either, and you don't go around tracking those down and deleting them, do you? I am really annoyed at the huge bias towards deleting really fun innovative material you can't find elsewhere in the open source world.--matador300 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any article which asserts a proposition must provide a source. Wikipedia is not a sufficient source for this. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has a policy against original research masquerading as encyclopedia articles. Calling this list "really fun innovative material" kinda incriminates it, I would say. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sure, somebody could look at Apollo at see that it was a success. But who would know to look for it in the first place if he were to look for a list of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century??--matador300
    • Comment Using words like success or failure if you haven't noticed involves a necessary normative judgment that is largely a matter of personal position, opinion or taste. I don't know exactly what your above comment means, but I assume you are saying that a list of achievements is needed. One like this is not for my stated reason. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't understand your point re "finding" Project Apollo. Any user can type in e.g. space travel and find Apollo pretty much immediately. They can then decide for themselves whether it was a "success" or "failure". The list includes several entries that say "no replacement in sight" as sole validation for inclusion. This is simply not good enough for an encyclopedia. There is no consistent rationale for inclusion in this list, so it boils down to an editor's whim, and that's what makes it deletable as a NPOV/NOR failure. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep People have tolerated and loved these pages for quite a long time, why delete them now? I hate this attitude of running around looking for excuses to tear down other people's sandcastles. We should spend more time building more stuff like this, not tearing it down.--matador300 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No excuse, Wikipedia is big and people familiar with the AfD process or policy may not have seen it until recently. There is no excuse to keep bad articles. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are no "other people's sandcastles" in WP. No editor "owns" any of the articles, including this one. I disagree we should be creating more non-verifiable subjective lists in breach of official WP policies on original research and POV, sorry. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep MMx, the author of the delete request has shown a strong bias for destroying the work of others. He has substantially reversed the F-14 page to say that it was not and was never designed to be an air superiority fighter, categorically junking every cited source up to Janes Defence and Aviation week. You are only encouraging of this destructive behavior. I suspect MMx is tracking down related pages and putting in delete bombs as revenge, which should certainly not be enouraged. --matador300 10:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although you appear to have difficulties with Mmx1, mentioning them and asserting bias does not invalidate this discussion, particularly as the reasoning is quite cogent. SM247My Talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To user matador300 (i.e., Wiarthurhu), please don't mark all your comments with Keep/Delete, those bold-type indications are designed to help the admin, so should be asserted once per user per AfD. Thanks. --DaveG12345 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate bolding struck out --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the obvious reasons above, but mainly verifiability and WP:NOR. It would be possible, theoretically, to assemble a list of engineering projects that have been labelled successes by someone--but that would be of doubtful value. A list of projects considered successes by Arthur Hu--with a decided bias towards his interests--is of even less value. · rodii · 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random, unsourced, original research. See Films considered the worst ever for the way do a list like this in a way that can surrive AfD. Eluchil404 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euthanise, these lists fail badly without well defined criteria (is something really a success if it sells well but is a piece of junk? Or if early success reverses? And so on and so on....) --iMeowbot~Meow 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

User has deleted the AfD notice[68] and moved the article to List_of_projects_considered_to_be_unusually_successful_in_science_and_engineering[69] Which is now worse. What's "usually"? Also, moving a page during AfD is bad form and so is removing the AFD notice. --Mmx1 16:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My issue is with the content, not the title. A change of title will not save this article from deletion for POV/NOR failure IMO. Please assume my comments apply to the new page(s). I would guess all other comments above should be considered the same way. The removal of AfD notice and this monkeying around seems to show a general contempt for the AfD process. --DaveG12345 16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if the title of the article were appropriate, which I dispute as "usually" only makes it more POV, wiki is permitted to delete an article to restart if the content is inappropriate. I don't think there's any doubt that the content is amateur, unsourced, and essentially the opinions of one editor. --Mmx1 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list can never be anything other than subjective. Subjectivity is fine in articles, as long as they're attributed to people, but there's no evidence of that here. Ziggurat 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely subjective. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martiniboys.com[edit]

Advertising. Unsourced. Crystalball.➨ ЯEDVERS 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian de Cambiaire[edit]

Quick google.com search reveals one other webpage and about 3 pictures on the image search. I've never heard of him and neither has google. Could well be a vanity article I'll bring the food 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. Kafziel 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable; I found one interview in Working Artists Journal but it sounds like he's an artist striving for notability, not one who has achieved it. The fact that the article has spent the last 4 months on the wikify list and no one has thought him important to improve the article should say something, too.Akradecki 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above--Heidijane 08:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Josefson[edit]

Junior American Hockey League player - not-notable. Delete. BlueValour 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horan capital management[edit]

Blatant Advertorial. "We, we, we......" Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Check the edit history of this page. Creator removed AfD, stripped page down to one sentence (now Not Notable) - did they see the weewee?. AfD replaced. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. --Brad101 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the company is used as a source in several publications none of them are actually about Horan Capital Management, so there's not enough verifiable information to warrant an article. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if someone can suggest a good destination. Ziggurat 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete at request of creator. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Football League[edit]

Cute, but no. Non-notable; restricted to tbe "extended Chapman family." RidG Talk 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pointless. Jimshears 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable family traditions are nice but I don't think watching my Uncle Lou falling down drunk every Thanksgiving would merit an article and I would bet that is more entertaining than paper football. DrunkenSmurf 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly pointless article. --Coredesat talk 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was as follows:

Premature closing due to Speedy Delete criteria G7 (author requests deletion). As this is information based on a fanfiction without verifiability (and no direct google hits outside of Wikipedia itself), and the author of the material discussed is demanding deltion, I believe this falls under speedy deletion easily. Moreover, the clear concensus is delete. — Deckiller 06:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeaus[edit]

I have removed the text from this article, so no further damage can be done. I want the text to remain deleted so I can protect my material. Roygene 04:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written by my brother, who operates under the name Caliente001, for the sole purpose of getting under my skin. Xeaus is a creation of my own for a book I am writing and should not be listed as a part of Star Wars. Roygene 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as entirely unreferenced. Molerat 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced, fanfic characters don't belong here. --Coredesat talk 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fandom. — Deckiller 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Amelico (AfD discussion), there is nothing to prove that this article wasn't made up from whole cloth directly in Wikipedia. Whether it is fan fiction or not is irrelevant. The article is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the deal? WHY HASN'T THIS ARTICLE BEEN DELETED?!!! This material belongs to me and should not be listed as part of Wikipedia. These are my ideas that were stolen from me. I would question the policies of Wikipedia if they do not delete this article by tomorrow afternoon (June 30) at the latest. I want this articles deleted, or the text removed now. Roygene 03:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chirpyism[edit]

Hoax, albeit a funny one. Travelbird 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • not at all! chirpyism truly exists. We chirpists follow strict codes of chirpy conduct.
  • Save.Chripyism Lives and breathes and represents followers, of many backgrounds, creeds and races. To remove it as a hoax is an affront to our shared beliefs and our developing culture. As J. S. Mill states to squash a belief just because its followers are in the minority is an insult (and counter-productive) to the serch of truth, and thew vibracy of the good life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.108.127 (talk • contribs)
  • SaveAs the founder of Chirpyism, I strongly disagree with the comments that it is a hoax. By founding this religion, I hope to gain considerable tax breaks and therefore, I strictly follow Chirpyism. G. Joseph 28/06/06— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham85 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Hoax per nom. BJK 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. NN if it exists. You know, we haven't had a joke religion here in several days. I think Kekkosism was the last one. Mildly amusing, but not worth BJA. Fan1967 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost patent nonsense? Molerat 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cute, funny, but still a hoax. As for joke religions there was Cummalism a few days ago. Wildthing61476 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save I live in exeter and have actually heard of Chirpyism. Prehaps not well established, but certainly it exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.108.127 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Even if that is true we still require some sort of source Lsjzl 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You may only vote once in an AfD. Please try to remember this. ---Charles 02:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. More "new" religions. My head asplode. Tony Fox (speak) 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom this 'religion' is currently not notable as far as I can find. If it is indeed notable as suggested, please update the article to incorporate verifiable sources which validate your claims. Note that having a Nation State bearing said name is probably not the greatest source of notability. DrunkenSmurf 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is notability a word? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.108.127 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Protect against recreation. Burn its creators at the stake. ---Charles 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now really... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be overdoing it. Hanging seems more appropriate. (A rope is reusable, while the faggots of wood are merely renewable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, hang them if you must. Lousy liberals...--Charles 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete nonsense. No references, can't be verified. Not really all that well thought out as a joke. Sorry. Kuru talk 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweedly tweedly tweet, delete. NawlinWiki 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and protect from re-creation, non-notable, non-verifiable hoax religion. --Coredesat talk 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the hoax. Joeyramoney 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DrunkenSmurf, and in particular that the only reference I can find is on NationStates. SM247My Talk 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although IMHO it's no more ridiculous than e.g. Law of Attraction (New Age). --DaveG12345 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 09:15Z
  • Delete why-o-why wasn't it a db|nonsense in the first place. --Richhoncho 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Points for creativity (it's better written than many a real post), but delete.Tweeq 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Magazine[edit]

Another editor, User:Cholmes75 added a prod tag to this article. I think that Velocity Magazine 'is notable, but I thought I should bring it here since it would probably end up here in any event. --TruthbringerToronto 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy Jewellers[edit]

A group of artisans with no apparent notability. Negligible Google coverage, no press mentions - fails WP:CORP on all fronts. Sandstein 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think that this is too narrow a group to be notable. There is however the umbrella Worcestershire Guild of Designer Craftsmen [70] that /might/ be worth an article. BlueValour 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. It's not a company or corporation, just an organization. Still not notable. --Coredesat talk 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no reliable sources about this. nn. Ziggurat 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National pop league[edit]

While this doesn't seem particulalry notable, I am no expert in club nights so I am happy for the experts on here to give a view! BlueValour 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reason to keep has been produced. BlueValour 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable outside that one club. --Coredesat talk 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axio Entertainment[edit]

Does not assert notability, with an Alexa rating of 533,181. Reads like a vanispamcruftisment. Also, it only has 564 members. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does read like a textbook case of VSCA, and is not notable. Delete. -Fsotrain09 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable VSCA. --Coredesat talk 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also WP is not a free webhost. Tychocat 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - If you know of a website that has a Alexa rating of 21, 000, is that notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Tell me on my talk page. Thanks. Sorry if this is off-topic. Amaas120 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Fang Aili for making us all sick. And for failing CSD-A1. --Coredesat talk 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon milkshake[edit]

non notable food, what about cheese milkshakes, lettuce milkshakes, ham milkshakes .... ? Travelbird 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now! (per nom) I feel sick already. Did oyu have to elaborate? Actually this feels more like hoax. Fiddle Faddle 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please pass me a vomit bag Wildthing61476 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense and so tagged; someone get me a chocolate hamburger. NawlinWiki 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cue Ball Group[edit]

This a non-notable venture capital company recently begun. Their article is a bit too advert-ish, and (although they arguably assert notability), they don't prove it. Xoloz 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Brad101 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. -- Scientizzle 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a non-notable group, and company-cruft spamming by the original author. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Kravetz[edit]

Non-notable executive for a non-notable company, nominated at AfD above. On her owm, she only survived an A7 speedy from me because of a claim of importance in Romney's administration, but I think more proof of that is needed if she is to stay. Xoloz 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Brad101 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also WP is not a webhost for her resume, which is what's posted. Tychocat 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Would be a delete if the claim to notability was more substantive, such as a head of a team within Romney's administration. Failing that, delete as a personal advertisement/resume. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above - part of a series of advertorial non pieces Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Czolgolz 00:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - while verifiability is non-negotiable, I'm not convinced that there are no reliable and/or non-trivial sources available. Apart from Google, I get 131 hits on Factiva from reliable publications like the Toronto Star, though obviously not all of those are primarily about the band. I recommend a second nomination in a few weeks' time if no-one cares enough to actually pull out some reliable sources and use them to verify the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Red Spiders[edit]

Non-notable band from Canada. Unsourced and notibility tags had been placed June 23rd with no additions or talks. Lsjzl 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Yeah, someone needs to clean up this article, but Google shows thousands of hits for them, including many credible and notable Canadian music sites. Parsssseltongue 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Horrible article as it stands now but the band is still notable. BoojiBoy 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --TruthbringerToronto 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC for lack of awards, news articles, national tours, charted tunes. Most of the Ghits mentioned are music catalog listings. It's not enough that people claim the band is notable, that has to be verified and sourced. Article also looks like OR, and advertising. Tychocat 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Judging by this website, User:Elipika is being disingenuous when he writes about Jones in the third person (check the email address at the end of the post). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cru Jones[edit]

A wrestler bio. He seems to work with Deep South Wrestling, LLC which is apparently a secondary developmental territory for training wrestlers. As this appears to be Mr. Jones one claim to fame, that clearly fails to denote any level of notability. Most likely WP:VAIN as well. IrishGuy talk 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO. Cru Jones isn't even contracted to Deeps South Wrestling, hes just training there. — The King of Kings 04:51 June 29 '06

He is listed under the uncontracted wrestlers for Deep South. He is not a student who trains at Deep South's school, he wrestles every thurday night for Deep South. I should know, I help run his website. - Ethan.

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

The result of the debate wasDelete closing this tar pit before gets out of hand. Hoax/OR. "Newbie" quite knowledgeable of the wikiways and policies. -- Drini 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic toe[edit]

There is extensive discussion on the talk page which outlines the problems with this article. In a nutshell, it is all based on an article (published ten years ago) by one person. In the past decade absolutely nobody else has ever backed this theory. There have been no scholarly analysis of this theory. It is a new urban legend as the article itself even notes. IrishGuy talk 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per discussion. Zero verification for this, apart from one person's pet theory from ten years ago. --Nydas 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge verifyable content into foot, Morton's toe or digit ratio. The article is based on a paper published in a peer reviewed journal, there is no evidence that that paper is wrong, but there is little other work done on ethnic variation in relative toe lengths. There is a fair amount of scientific interest in relative finger lengths as indicators of prenatal hormone exposure, a topic this ought to be related to. There is some recently published work on relative big to second toe lengths as a function of the individual's sex, but none on variation between groups (at least not in humans). The term "Celtic toe" appears to be something of a neologism, and at least one other peer reviewed publication has documented this so-called Celtic toe in another ethnic group (in India). There is no data presented to support the claim that only Celtic descended individuals have this foot shape (and such a claim is not made in the primary source for the article). Likewise, the claim of a dominant Mendelian genetic basis is totally unsupported (and contradicted by other published research). This article could be the basis of an interesting article, or subsection of an article, on ethnic variation in foot morphology, but it doesn't really cut the mustard in it's present form. Much of the material is of real scientific worth, but it's presented on a slant that makes it very OR and subject to verifiability problems. Pete.Hurd 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Author cited in both Discover Magazine, and Current Archaeology has made the claim that the foot and toe bones of the celts can be distinguished from the Anglo Saxons in the United Kingdom. She has clearly identified the remains at many ancient archealogical bruial sites. Her work is published on the web and in Discover Magazine as well as Current Archaeology. Her work even includes photos of the foot bones where you can clearly see what she is talking about. How can this not be relevant? How can this not be sufficient? Its good enough for Discover Magazine and Current Archaeology, but not Wiki-Pedia, where content is generated by random people on the internet? Please. There is more than enough citations (5) Infact it should have kept with the rather brief article and single citation that it started with. Its more than sufficent. She is both a podiatrist and an archeologist and a far better expert on this matter than any one posting here.--Britton LaRoche 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your expert is the only person to believe this theory. One person's theory (regardless of credentials) isn't enough. One person can be wrong. IrishGuy talk 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of people believeing in a theory is all you care about and everyone shared your views then Einstein would never have made his theory known, and it would have never been undertsood. Neither would have Gallileo. Besides, I already gave you two, how about Raymond E. Hunter? If he is not good enough, then perhaps he can site the other Archaeologists and podiatrists that worked with Dr. Jackson. I can dig up a third and a fourth, but I'm not going to, there is no need. Her work can stand on its own. Her credentials are sufficent. --Britton LaRoche 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really do love going for egregious exaggerations, don't you? You can't seriously be saying that what Einstein was to physics, Jackson is to podiatry...are you? In any case, Raymond Hunter impresses me none as well. One unsourced article on a geneology site by a man with no listed credentials...this is supposed to impress? IrishGuy talk 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Who's credentials are acceptable? Her credentials are. Is Raymond Hunter any comparison? He listed two other podiatrists and additional archeologists in his article. They are out there, but their credentials will be no better than the credentials of Phillis Jackson. In fact, I doubt any one could touch her. How many English podiatrists turned archaeologist / anthropologist currently digging through English cemetaries are there in the world? I'm betting she's the top of the field if not the only subject matter expert.
Ah yes, life is so unjust. AfD procedures were followed. It was tagged for potential merge which you continued to remove. You weren't bitten as a newcomer but were quite actively engaged in conversation before it went up for AfD. IrishGuy talk 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of getting into this argument about this stupid topic that (literally) almost nobody even believes in (much less cares about), I'm just going to go with delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? All previous complaints have been corrected. The article is flawless. Tell me what remains to be corrected? According to the 4 criteria above, what does the article lack? If you can't list a reason, then add your self to the list of vandals. --Britton LaRoche 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right. That is enough attacking people for their opinions. People aren't vandals for not agreeing with you. Behavior like that and like this [71] borders on harassment. And it is a bald faced lie to claim that all previous complaints have been corrected. Have you come up with anyone other than Jackson in the past ten years who believe this? No. Have you any evidence at all that this is a theory that stretches any further than Jackson's own head? No. IrishGuy talk 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about what the sources are about, that's why it has problems with OR & Verifyability. You want to keep this stuff, then put what's in the sources, not what you think they imply, and put it in the appropriate articles, not under an article about your brand new theory. Pete.Hurd 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted previously, the article WAS tagged. You kept removing the tags. At that point it goes to AfD. All of this was stated on the talk page BEFORE it went to AfD. Procedures were followed. IrishGuy talk 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the citation given for Phyllis Jackson lacks accademic credentials, even in the article no real evidence for this phenomenon is provided (ie it is not based on research, no data are given as to the the differing frequencies of this phenomenon in England compared to other UK countries), only that she noticed that the foot shape was different. Has she written about this in a peer reviewed article, has she done any real research? Remember Beware false authority. and especially Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (from WP:RS). I do not think this constitutes a Reliable source (and therefore breaches the verifiability policy). The article also doesn't give the alternative POV (and so is in breach of the NPOV policy), which is that English and Non-English British people are really very homogeneous biologically. [72] Alun 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Phyllis Jackson Anyway ?[edit]

"1992 Work of Phillis Jackson, Reference to other Archaeologists"
The Saxon/Briton question warranted further investigation. Chiropodist Phyllis Jackson's expert examination of the foot bone clarified the mystery - this was a native Briton. Radio carbon dating analysis revealed he died between 340 and 550 AD.
"Field Work, Articles and notes of Jackson in 2002"
Phyllis Jackson has continued her work on foot bones from sites throughout the city. She has now studied over sixty burials, from excavations at Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street. Her research, which looks at the structure of the foot, provides evidence for ethnic and tribal origins, deformity, disease and way of life (for an introduction to Miss Jackson's work see Current Archaeology 144, pp466-70). As always, volunteers and work experience students have provided invaluable assistance with improving the documentation and storage of archaeological material held at the unit. RA
7 ages of Brittian
I think that there has been no evidence that this phenomenon is specific to non-English British people. One cannot make a definitive statement that English people have different feet to non-English people just through a generalised observation. The archaeological references are irrelevant, as these assume that this is a real phenomenon. Where is the evidence that this is indeed the case? You need an accademic article stating that there is a higher incidence of Celtic toe in the non-English British population than in the English one. This seems to be nothing more than someone making a claim and then applying it to archaeology, with no evidence that the claim is in fact correct. Alun 07:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: To everyone, all I've done is try to communicate, maybe I did not choose the best methods. Feel free to delete everything, or keep it. Its up to you. I will now go quietly away. Sorry for the bother, but I don't want any ill will or bad feelings.--Britton LaRoche 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Morton’s toe. The problem with this article is that it over cooks the information and tries to make out that there is more to the evidence than their actually is. Because of the way it is worded, when I first stumbled across it I thought this was a recognised medical condition when only closer examination it is an interpretation of anecdotal evidence with one small study. I don’t think that this is an intentional distortion of the data by the author as has been suggested here, just the result of somebody getting to ‘into’ their subject, and not seeing the wood for the trees. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. I should also like to gently remind some of the people on this page of Wikipedia’s policy of civility. You don’t have to agree, but please refrain from verbal attacks and abuse – it spoils it for everyone. Although the article can’t remain in its current state, (there are too many unfounded statements and weasel words) it can’t be denied that a) Celtic toe exists as a concept (even if it is an old wife’s tale) and that b) Somebody has tried to prove it scientifically and published it (regardless of how flawed the study is). I think therefore that this should be moved to a paragraph on Morton’s toe. Ideally I think this should contain a description of the myth, maybe taking a couple of the illustrations and then a couple of lines explaining what the study attempted to show, with the reservations clearly explained Mammal4 12:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just another Ignorant newbie, please don't bite.[edit]

After what I percieved as a not so nice initiation process to Wiki-Pedia, I stitched my wounds and took some time to reflect on the experience. I'm a firm believer that human nature is basically good. We as people do not tend to misbehave unless we feel we have been mistreated. In genral, it is my opinion that ill will and bad feelings toward another is based on frustration and mis-understanding. It is hard not to let your emotions overide your sense of Wikipedia:Civility when you are frustrated and feel you have been mis-treated.

  • What Happened? I believe that my bad experience was not due to either my nature or to the nature of the other people working here on Wiki-Pedia. Wiki-Pedia is a great concept and produces a lot of good. I think the reason why I had a bad newbie experience is because the Wiki-Pedia initial submission process could be improved. If we look at the process, Wiki-Pedia's current process is a process of exclusion, not a process of inclusion. Any one can submit, and then another must remove it if its not good enough. This causes pain and strife between those who submit and those who review. A minor change in the Wiki-Pedia process, can save the newbies from what appears to them as a severe bite. On the surface it may seem only a minor change in policy, but underneath it is a major change to the Wiki-Pedia psyche that will affect the well being of all those involved.
  • Wiki-Pedia, provider of light and wisdom to all for free. How does it work? The concept of Wiki-Pedia is to let anyone contribute. Something is better than nothing. On the whole it works, because on the whole human nature is good. That being said, human nature is not always good. The problem with allowing any one to contribute is that it allows the lesser side, the dark side of human nature to rise and voice its opinion too. This leads to garbage contribution: lies, malicious rumors, untuths, vanity and self glorification posts which have nothing to do with the purpose of Wiki-Pedia. We as contributors, and especially as editors must be vigiliant and constantly clean up these things.
  • Ouch, Bad newbie! Bad! The problem is that we newbies, good people new to the process, are basically ignorant of how it works. We are bound to make mistakes, and we are sometimes lumped in with the rest of the garabage. Feelings are hurt, and those who have great potential to contribute may leave and never return.


  • Don't Bite, Lick. A suggestion and Possible Solution. Instead of tagging someones article as unverified after someone has spent time working on it, the suggestion is that all articles must start out with an unverified tag, and a note that it can or will be deleted. (This can be accomplished through code or perhaps a default template setting for new users) The editors job is now to remove the tags once they feel it is worthy of being part of Wiki-Pedia. We all mean well. We are all here for the dissemination of the truth, and basically put hard work in for free. We do this because we feel this is right, and because we believe in it. This kind of person should not be abused, either because they are doing their job as an editor, or doing their job as a newbie contributer learning the ropes.
  • Little things add up. A minor change in the process can make a major difference. When the article is first posted it is automatically marked with a tag that it is unverified and subject to deletion, until it has passed editorial review. The newbie has been educated. No ones feelings will be hurt by this. And... the best part is the editors are now viewed as the good guys by the newbies. They newbie hopes that an editor will come along and help him or her remove the tag. The Editors remove the unverified tag... or they submit it for deletion. The editor's main task now is to include the work. The whole of Wiki-Pedia changes from a process of exclusion to a process of inclusion.--BrittonLaRoche 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that some articles are verifiable and notable from the beginning and others never will be. Why tag something in its gestation when it is already verifiable? IrishGuy talk 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose some one as educated, experienced and wise as you should not have such an impediment. As for the rest of the newbies, how can you tell the good from the bad? --BrittonLaRoche 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because like Gil Grissom - I follow the evidence (or I did when I was that new) - how long has the article been there? Where are the sources? What attempt has been made to find sources? What is the conversation like on the talkpage etc? so to conclude I'd like to say:


Since this AFD is about an article based extensively on the work of one Expert - people may wish to check the AFD discussion about that expert. See here - read to the bottom, share my pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phyllis_Jackson

--Charlesknight 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment also please note that much of this AfD has been deleted by Britton LaRoche which definitely changes the appearance of certain comments. People were called vandals for voting for deletion. With others, Britton LaRoche asked for their editing priviledges to be revoked. [73] IrishGuy talk 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Everything is based on a single study over 10 years ago, which was not peer reviewed as far as I can tell, by an author who has not published anything in peer reviewed articles. If this pattern has validity, it would by now have been repeated, and extended and other studies would have been published.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Strong Keep Its not over. Far from it. Just because I was duped by one misguided source does not mean that she was not peer reviewed. Remember, many articles start off in pretty bad shape. Should you delete it, then in all good conscious you should re-write it, if it turns out do be peer reviewed and academically note-worthy. If not then let me finish it with the proper credentials. I had never heard of "Osteoarcheology" before. At least the misguided source gave me a new keyword to use in my search. I have found new articles on my own that I will now investigate."Phyllis Jackson Osteoarcheology Academic Reviews" --BrittonLaRoche 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vote more than once. IrishGuy talk 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK that does not link to articles but rather a 68 pg document called "Current and Recent Research in Osteoarchaeology: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Osteoarchaeological Research Group (The Osteoarchaeological Research Group) (Paperback)" published in 1998 about their meeting in 1995. The ORG seems to be a hobbist organization - "The Osteoarchaeological Research Group (ORG) was set up in 1993 with the intention of bringing together anyone who works with or has an interest in human and/or animal remains. The core function of the group is to provide a forum for the exchange of news and ideas through quarterly newsletters and regular meetings. We are also interested in promoting the provision of careers advice and training in this field, providing information on services for specialists and considering standards for recording/reporting." - I can find no evidence that this organization has been notable in any way or has made any significant contribution to this area of endeavour. A cursory examination also suggests that none of it members are notable (again happy to be corrected and please do). So what we appear to have is a mention of a non-notable person in a non-notable book by a non-notable organization. I still find the evidence of notablity for this person and their claims to be lacking. Those who wish to keep need to provide something more solid than we have seen before. --Charlesknight 17:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least while it is still being investigated and reviewed. It will turn out to be a great article that with both promote fact and dispell fiction. My skin is thick now. I intend to correct the article on my own while we review it. I believe this can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time as I am learning the rules of the game, and what a proper artcile is all about. We have done this because of many good comments and great suggestions given in this discussion. It is no longer one persons article, the feedback will shape it in to proper form through team effort. Don't let your good feedback and time go to waste. --BrittonLaRoche 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have already lost the "Celtic Toe Ring" its gone forever. Wikipedia will never have a reference to it again, but other sites such as google will always have such a reference. Actually thousands of references. "Googles: Celtic Toe Ring" Google 9,510, Wiki-Pedia 0 --BrittonLaRoche 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vote more than once. IrishGuy talk 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Morton's toe, where it deserves about a sentence among the other disputed ethnic/anthropological interpretations of toe length. I've tidied the latter, which was somewhat confused about which Morton was being cited. BTW, I think a little reminder about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and the general dislike of obfuscating AFD discussions is in order. Tearlach 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The position of Celtic Toe in the academic literature[edit]

OK I have found myself involved in this due to my interaction on the Phyllis Jackson AFD. I have consulted all of the academic databases that I have access to. I can find no mention of this theory at all. It is not even mentioned to dismiss it. Can anyone find a reference to it anywhere in the academic community?

--Charlesknight 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is pretty near to my research interests, and I havn't heard of it. I've looked hard and can find zero evidence of it beyond the references originally provided by the editor. I do have one paper in my bibliography collection that deals with an ethnic group in India that has about 7 to 10% of the population with the second toe longer than the big toe, other than that I know of one other published study that finds sex differences in the relative lengths of these two toes in undergraduate students in Texas. That's all I'm aware of for humans. (A reasonable amount of research has been done on various non-human animal find limb digit ratio in the last few years) Pete.Hurd 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports architecture[edit]

Is this seperate definition really needed? Brad101 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nom withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Glands[edit]

Non notable - article even says so!, non NPOV Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn by Nominator Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment POV has been addressed. Article remains poor, but is improved. Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tweaked it a little, too. Would you agree now that the band IS notable? Parsssseltongue 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just show us WP:MUSIC clearly and the job is done for me. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, it IS! Answere my own question. Job done. Dude, edit the article Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the quoted "Bar None Records" is Bar/None Records I think that does it and I will withdraw gracefuly and with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Wow, you gave the originator article all of eight minutes before you sent this for deletion. Yes, it needs cleanup, but that's all. They have done national tours, they are on notable record labels, and have recieved reviews in Rolling Stone. I would ask you to reconsider your nomination, withdraw it, and mark this for cleanup instead. And wait more then 8 minutes next time, maybe actually do a Google search before you assume bad faith. Parsssseltongue 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I looked at the article charitably at first. Then I re-read it. It said then "Ultimately the band is relitively unknown, but its hard not to wonder when there music is going to fall into the right hands and before you know it will be heard on every radio station and seen and heard on every music TV show. These guys offer catchy tunes but at the heart of it all the songs are a bunch of random string of words, but they do it so well that it works for them." That was sufficient to say "non notable". The article screamed it at me. I do see that this is changing (this para has been removed, and POV is becoming neutral) and I will revisit the page in a couple of days. I don't "nominate and run. I have a strong preference for AfD being solved by a much enhanced article. In so many ways that is what it is for. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reverted the POV and impossible to verify and cleanup statements. Feel free to revert if you please. Yanksox 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article much improved. If someone can show clearly how it meets WP:MUSIC I'll happily withdraw my nom (but I'm not around now until Friday). For me this means AfD is working correctly for this article. Fast and good enhancement. Only the WP:MUSIC hurdle to leap. Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 28 June 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, Parsssseltongue 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Shiksha Niketan School[edit]

Tagged Cleanup-School for 3 weeks. No improvements made. Unverifiable, and not-notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. Almost all Google hits are on Wikipedia mirrors. --Coredesat talk 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High school. Verifiable does not mean "verifiable by google". Have you visited a research library in India to check this out? Chicheley 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:SCHOOL is neither a policy nor a guideline. There's still nothing in the article that asserts its existence or notability, and no search engines (I have searched on more than just Google) can verify any of its "achievements". The school doesn't even have a website, and if it weren't for the last sentence, there'd be no indication that this is even a high school. --Coredesat talk 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable; does not assert any achievements except bare existence; plugs the founder, who apparently founds new schools for a living. ImpuMozhi 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, non-verified. Schools are normally pathetically easy to verify - they get local press mentions for their group activities and for the budget and other political discussions that mention them. If it can't be readily verified, it is clearly not notable. GRBerry 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the school can be verified through Google as well, but a direct link to their website would be useful if one exists. [76] [77] Yamaguchi先生 08:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It doesn't seem to have one, based on all my searching. --Coredesat talk 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a verifiable high school. Carioca 21:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak keep, as the second link Yamaguchi has posted mentions that it was founded as a high school, but is now a college, not a high school. Colleges are in a completely different world as far as notability is concerned, and if this article can be expanded to reflect that, I'm fine with it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The article states that there are multiple schools by the same name by the same founder. Presumably, there could also be others by the name with different founders. The college source Yamaguchi found doesn't say where the Adarsh College is. The first link Yamaguchi found matches this article as to name and location, shows it as still a secondary school, but has a page info date in 2000. Has it turned into a college, or is that a different school that used to have this name? I can't tell. GRBerry 18:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, secondary schools and colleges are notable. Silensor 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 17:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly noteworthy. 68.144.102.170 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any school should be noteworthy - Lost 11:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, and to counter any potential systemic bias. Bahn Mi 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio, by Quarl. --Coredesat talk 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speakersneakers[edit]

WP:SPAM for SpeakerSneakers.com RidG Talk 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for eating ham and jam and spam a lot. Already tagged for speedy deletion for copyvio. --Coredesat talk 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Superman Sequel[edit]

It's untitled for one. Two WP:NOT and three Superman just came out today. BJK 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball. Let's wait till a sequel is actually officially announced, first. I haven't heard of anything beyond the usual "if this is a hit we may do a follow-up" talk that every film generates. Odds are there will be a Superman Returns 2 but it's premature to write an article on it now. 23skidoo 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal-balling. --Coredesat talk 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, how is it crystal-balling if everything in it is verifiable facts? Just because the movie doesn't have a name doesn't mean there can't be an article about it (there obviously will be at some point). We know that there will be a sequel, we know that it is currently untitled, no crystal-balling. Yonatanh 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The film just came out today as with all big blockbusters there is always talk of a sequel. The article should wait till the talks are more concrete and we have a name for the sequel. BJK 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment IMDB isn't often wrong about the existence of productions of sequels. [78] Yonatanh 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment IMDB is wrong all the time about movies in "pre-production". Fan1967 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many things can, and often do, go wrong before the cameras start rolling. Until filming actually starts this has to be regarded as crystal ball. Fan1967 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 23:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete although the project has apparently been announced, should probably wait until more details (including a working title) become available. For now, keep any information in the main article for Superman Returns because this is more than just scrying. SM247My Talk 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, crystal-balling. --DaveG12345 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation once a working title and more reliable details are released. Yamaguchi先生 08:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You guys convinced me but I don't know how to do the strikethrough line. Yonatanh 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment <s></s> Like that. BJK 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I thought it was <s></s>. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hmm test, test well your right I'm wrong oops. BJK 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether there will be a sequal or not, this article will eventually be useless. Antmoney85 17:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There will be plenty of time to create an article for the (potential) sequel without maintaining an entry full of "planned" and "expected" verbiage. It's just a placeholder at this point. Mr Snrub 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Singer's already given solid fact in interviews regarding his intent for the series, including use of villians, characters, themes and storylines. That's not only fact, it's horse's mouth fact.ThuranX 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if what ThuranX says is true it should be cited in the article. And I would change my vote to weak delete. I really need to get around to writing an essay about film notability (or any one else could too). Eluchil404 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Citations added as requested. Also, I'd like to move the page to a more proper title, Untitled Superman Returns Sequel, as 'Untitled Superman Sequel' reads like being a Superman V which picks up right after Superman IV.ThuranX 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Delete the cited articles confirm that no official decision has been made yet. That Bryan Singer is willing to do a sequal and has ideas for it can be mentioned in the Superman Returns article. Unless it is greenlit, there is no basis for not considering this crystal-ballism, IMO. Note the essay that will write tonight suggests waiting until a film is actually in production before begining an article. Eluchil404 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And please note that all of the above delete votes were made based on this substantially less-reputable version of the page (I would have voted delete as well). The page is now cited, verifiable and presents only the facts. Just because a film has no title doesn't mean it can't have an article. Finally, this article has future potential, and we don't delete articles just because their content isn't up to scratch (alternatives to deletion). —EatMyShortz 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if hesitantly. I think the key is that the film doesn't have a title yet. At this point, sequel speculation could easily be kept in the Superman Returns article. Once the film gets a title or starts production, then it would be reasonable to start an article for itself. Until then, I don't like the speculative nature of the article title, and I just don't feel it stands on its own yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wait for useful information to come out (besides a sentence or two of which actors were in the first one and would most likely return), then redo this. ViceroyInterus 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to electronic music[edit]

Original research/commentary NawlinWiki 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no use to anyone. SM247My Talk 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, arbitrary POV. Look up Audiophile if you want to learn about listening to music, and for a whole host of reasons why this article can never be NPOV. --DaveG12345 01:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Shyam mantras, Shri Shyam Vinati and Shri Shyam Aarti[edit]

Its just the whole text of a long devotional hymn, made available in two languages. Three similar pages (three hymns) are being nominated here. Please note that I have already transferred whatever little useful matter was found (when & by whom the hymns are sung) to the Khatushyamji page. ImpuMozhi 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn[edit]

non-notable 999 (Talk) 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom - (disclosure: I started the article) -999 (Talk) 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After searching amazon for books under the title and not finding anything, I'd have to agree; NN. Zos 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (same should apply for all the sub-organisations listed on that page). SM247My Talk 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V does not allow the use of material from the Order's website in any other article. Once deleted, the contents are not appropriate to be added to any other article. -999 (Talk) 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I really do not understand what part of WP:V you are referring to. I was under the impression that this is related to the Hermetic Order and thus would only merit a mention there, as it is not sufficiently important for its own page. I did not argue for deletion. SM247My Talk 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I refer to the part that says that self-published websites may only be used as sources in an article about the person or organization that publishes the website. If the only source of information about an org is its website, then it either has its own article on WP or can't be mentioned, except maybe in an external link. -999 (Talk) 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment You and I are at cross-understanding here. I was talking about the similar sub-organisations to this listed on the Hermetic Order page and nothing to do with sources. Fair enough. SM247My Talk 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is discussion pertaining to this nomintation, not others that have not been nominated for deletion. Also, the original cretion of the sub pages were done through consensus. If the articles were to be merged back, they would then again be made into sub articles again based on size of the main page. Just thought you should know that there is more here than a simple nomination. Zos 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - actually, merge is a valid vote on an AfD. Maybe you should read up on the process? -999 (Talk) 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to "all of the other sub pages". This would be for other nominations for deletion, where as, this is for only one article. Zos 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, I did not notice they were also up for deletion, which is irrelevant because anyway because my suggestion would be a consistent application of policy with respect to those proposed for deletion. SM247My Talk 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Technically, since the author is requesting deletion, wouldn't this be a speedy candidate? --Coredesat talk 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that meets the criteria for speedy...Zos 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as copyvio. I'm sorry guys, but copyright violations take precedence over any Non-delete votes in this AfD. However, per the consensus on this AfD, this article can certainly be created and kept as long as there is no copyrighted content. I checked this article, and it is essentially the same as the links that Bishonen gave. "there's only so many ways to phrase the information" is a common argument for copyright violations, but it's not a valid argument. There are many ways of writing something without breaking copyright. Teachers and professors will certainly agree with me. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, I have done so. I created a basic stub that doesn't violate any copyrights. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Stella Matutina[edit]

non-notable 999 (Talk) 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination (see below) ---Baba Louis 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nom (disclosure: I started the article). -999 (Talk) 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - improvement of Stella Matutina and arguments of Baba Louis have caused me to change my mind again. Am I permitted to withdraw the nomination? -999 (Talk) 16:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, copyvio. Of its six-line text (on my screen), half is an honestly acknowledged quote from http://www.ritual-magic.com/ — probably legally OK, but quite redundant and meaningless, as there are already no less than two links to ritual-magic.com on the tiny page. The rest is stitched up out of unacknowledged quotes lifted from ritual-magic.com, and from here, a "Witches of the World" group page also linked in the article. Not a legitimate word as far as the eye can see. Incidentally, the first sentence is identical to the first sentence of the Stella Matutina article (a little oddly, since I see you stating on Talk:Ordo Stella Matutina that they are utterly different things). Er, I see you started that article as well, 999. Is it all made up of quotes too? Bishonen | talk 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment:, yes, I started Stella Matutina, but as a redirect to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and then as a place to put info about the historic Stella Matutina that didn't belong here. I then realized the material was included in the main article and made it a redirect again. It was then revived by User:SynergeticMaggot. On the other topic, I don't think this is a copyvio. The only source of information is the website, which is an acceptable source in an article about the org itself. There's only so many ways basic info can be phrased, and only the quotes are exact wording. Whatever, I have since decided that the org is non-notable. -999 (Talk) 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there's always room for disagreement about notability, and others may decide differently, so I'd like to avoid discussing a copyvio on the basis of non-notability. Only so many ways basic info can be phrased? I don't want to run this into the ground, but this is from http://www.witchvox.com/vn/vn_detail/dt_gr.html?a=uspr&id=27373: "The Ordo Stella Matutina is an initiatory Order dedicated to the dissemination of the traditional teachings of the historic Golden Dawn Hermetic Society through the process of initiation... The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma’at (HSoM) is an online based mystery school ... governed and operated by the Chiefs of the Ordo Stella Matutina." And this is from the article, in fact it's most of the article: "The Ordo Stella Matutina is an initiatory Order founded in 2000 dedicated to the dissemination of the traditional teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn through the process of initiation. The Order includes The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma’at (HSoM), an online based mystery school governed and operated by the Chiefs of Ordo Stella Matutina." That's not using a source of information, it's a scissors operation. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • That's hilarious. The only piece of infomation I took from that site was the date :-) The rest was already in the article before I discovered that site. Check the history. That just proves what I said: there's only so many ways to phrase the information. I summarized it from various pages on the order's website. Apparently the author of the witchvox site did too. -999 (Talk) 00:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially incomprehensible. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: this article in my opinion should be used in conjunction with the Stella Matutina article, but if this cannot be done it should be deleted. There is imply not enough information to expand, yet if it were merged it would sit nicely in Stella Matutina. Zos 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agreed that this article is not notable enough for it's lack of verifiability. Kephera975 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since deletion is based on the soundness of arguments rather than a majority vote, it seems to me that since this article has not been expanded, it is still alltogether non-notable per Wikipedia's notability policy on organizations. Sure, the historical Stella Matutina is notable enough by published references, but there is no evidence indicating that this group is a descendent to or related to that historical organization. I say keep the historical Stella Matutina page and delete this one given that it is a stub with only a website to support it's existence. It is basically nothing more than a vanity page. Kephera975 19:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this, redirect to Stella Matutina if that is kept. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments of Zos, Baba Louis and Hanuman Das. Delete and redirect to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Ekajati 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ekajati 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I doubt this can be redirected to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article simply because there is no evidence of a connection just yet. ALthought there is a connection to Stella Matutina and should be redirected there if it is to be redirected. Zos 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this organization is different from both Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and different from Stella Matutina. It should have its own article (but it certainly needs to be improved/expanded). ---Baba Louis 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Baba Louis. —Hanuman Das 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article simply needs expansion and improvement --Frater Xyzzy 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gurunath 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Theres a problem with expanding this article, as its a partial revival of the Stella Matutina, which was an offshoot of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. If there is no possibility of merging the Ordo stella, and the stella matutina, then I'll change my vote to delete. Zos 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:38Z

ZOO BOMB[edit]

Text is promotional, and I don't see how this event is or could be notable enough for Wikipedia. Daniel Case 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not. Delete for non-notable spamvertisement. --Coredesat talk 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have self-identified to an anthropological category[edit]

This list is not encyclopaedic. If this list is taken to its furthest extreme---i.e., if it becomes what it truly claims to be, a literal list of people who have identified themselves as "American," or "French," or "French-Canadian," etc., it would be completely unwieldy. My suspicion, though, is that it will not amount to much of anything. In any case, how is such a list useful? If the individuals listed are in any way notable or important, mention can (and, one assumes, will) be made in each individual's article as to the "anthropological category" with which they identify. In the meantime, let's delete this list as unencyclopaedic and absurd. Charles 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll give it an Irish-American/French-Canadian/with-a-bit-of-Pennsylvania-Dutch Delete. Of all the list ideas I've ever seen here, this has to be the most unwieldy: "Here are three entries, please add 6 billion more." Fan1967 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes---"Here are three entries, please add 6 billion more."---this was precisely the impression I had when I first saw the page. He created an article with such a broad topic, and yet only had three entries. That's just a lack of effort, since anybody would fit this list. ---Charles 03:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete as per ridiculousness outlined by above Yonatanh 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proto-Indo-European Delete per above. SM247My Talk 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irish-Norwegian-English-American Delete. BuckRose 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, list of potentially all people ever. Isn't this what we have Categories for? --DaveG12345 01:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a french-canadian, caucasian male, I find the list to be nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info by a wide margin. --Coredesat talk 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. —Hanuman Das 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PIE Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 09:05Z
  • Anglo-Welsh delete trwy enwebiad. -- GWO
  • German-Polish-English-Scots Irish-Dutch Delete Eluchil404 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty ridiculous idea for a list. Unmanagable and listcruft. Ydam 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 07:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • English-Scottish-Welsh-Norweigan-Swedish-French and quite possibly West African American delete per Fan1967. Grandmasterka 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assigning individuals to ethnicity categories has been a can of worms on Wikipedia, and this article attempts to help things by limiting entries to verifiable self-identifications. Kurieeto 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, and nominator also withdrew the AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Matutina[edit]

duplicate article: the history of Stella Matutina is already included in the article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 999 (Talk) 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article is improving so changing my vote to keep. -999 (Talk) 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is notable, and is being worked on presently. Also, none of the material in this article is on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article, and the material pertaining to this article on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn does not have citations. Zos 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This article was to go through a process of mediation, on the meditation main page. The material from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn should not be there, since the Stella Matutina article is a subpage and is not a continuation from the main order but an offshoot after a feud with the members. Zos 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: However, the user above withdrew from the meditation rather than wait for a consensus on the above. -999 (Talk) 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: - A careful review of the talk pages, clearly shows an attempt at ownership and verbal abuse, reported on WP:ANI. The article is notable, and being addd to. Zos 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been less than a day and a half. Deletion efforts are premature - give the article some time to grow. Ehheh 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the material is also in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and there is no evidence to support a consensus to separate it from that article. ---Baba Louis 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after looking into this further, I suggest that both this and Ordo Stella Matutina be kept. ---Baba Louis 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to material in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. --Coredesat talk 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Of course its redundant to the material in the main article! It shouldnt be there, but on its own page. Zos 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if notable, but I'm not convinced of that. —Hanuman Das 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC) and integrate any material from Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which is specific to the subject of this article. —Hanuman Das 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than enough information for a separate article. The SM were paricularly big here in New Zealand (probably the country's biggest esoteric order), and were very active in the early 20th century. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like it is developing. Delete and redirect to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Ekajati 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ekajati 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs to be expanded greatly. All it has is the history, and we need to know more about what it actually is....... KV(Talk) 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article looks better now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhapsody in Drew[edit]

This is a poorly written Pokémon episode article, that doesn't even mention Pokémon until it's halfway through. The last AfD debate had pretty much reached a consensus on delete, except Your log in name and his/her various sockpuppets/meatpuppets. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep again, isn't this a breach of WP:POINT? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, I'm pretty sure the admin completely ignored the "Votes by new users" section. And besides, I think your supposed to wait around 3 months or something before proposing an AFD again.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Speedy Keep per guidelines. Comment If you want to challenge the finding, post a deletion review. --Coredesat talk 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Isn't a Deletion Review meant only for articles that were deleted? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not necessarily, I see no-consensus keeps get contested there quite often, and "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora". --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's a suggestion why can't put the words Pokemon Episode on top. Thief Lord 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's just a non-notable episode. Do you seriously want a Wikipedia article on every single Pokémon episode? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ignoring the nominator's bad reasoning about the last debate, I don't see why this article should be deleted. There is a whole category of Pokemon episodes (Category:Pokémon episodes.) This is a stub, but stubs are okay. The only good alternative to having the article would be to merge articles like this into a list, but considering the detail in articles on other episodes, it's not reasonable. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Most of the other Pokémon episode articles are copied from Bulbapedia and, sooner or later, will be mass-tagged and -deleted as copyright violation. Check out Pokémon, I Choose You!. --The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? I doubt this one is a copyvio. And anyways, Copyvio's are only supposed to be deleted if a new article is made at the temp subpage linked to from the copyvio template.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: This one isn't copyvio, but the rest of them are. And they have been/will soon be tagged as copyvio and removed from the aforementioned category, and this will probably be the only episode article left, an undesirable result, which if noted as a precedent will promote the writing of more trivial episode articles. Moreover, the relevant Wikiproject and many of its members are against having episode articles, as noted here, here, here and here. --The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there is a no-consensus exception to AfD. This article is poorly written, and reads like original research. There was a clear consensus to delete in the previous AfD debate before sockpuppets hijacked it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There was some non sockpuppet users who did not want it to be deleted. I was one of them. Thief Lord 11:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, had you checked, It was made clear which votes were made by the new users/sockpuppets. Thus, the person who closed the AFD made it clear which votes where leginamite and which weren't.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The point of this discussion is to decide whether the article should be deleted or not, and not to ascertain whether I'm senile and/or negligent. Please refrain from personal conversation. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What personal conversation? I am just pointing out that the sockpuppet votes were ignored.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is Bulbapedia owned by the same people who own Wikipedia? Thief Lord 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no, they are completely unaffailated.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 18:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful. Gang

staEB• ice slides) 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois)[edit]

A mall with no assertion, {or hint of) notability. Fails WP:CORP, the most relevent standard. I therefore suggest Delete.Inner Earth 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that I had prod'd this (and four others) after the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greengate Mall, a n-n closed mall. This one was not closed, which may have been why it was de-prod'dInner Earth 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to be a major enclosed mall with five anchors. Article could use some expansion. --JJay 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, certainly nothing to say it's major, minor, faster, or more colorful than any other mall. Tychocat 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability asserted. --Coredesat talk 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. —Hanuman Das 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Of the 7 keep votes (discounting duplicate votes), one was "it's edited a lot", two were "but this article was kept", three were "it's interesting", and one was "it's been around for over a year". The (12) editors arguing 'delete' made arguments related to its inherent POV, citing WP:NPOV, a lack of sources (WP:RS), and the subjectiveness of the subject and its title. I judge the arguments for deletion to outweight those to keep. Proto///type 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous failures in science and engineering[edit]

Crufty, unsourced list with the nebulous criteria of "famous" and "failure". Famous is a vague criteria - many of the examples in this list are not famous. Boeing 7J7? Unnamed VSTOL aircraft? Summerland? Failure, actually, is the more problematic criteria. Is the M-16 a failure because it was initially deployed wrong (though it is now a resounding success). Is ALGOL a failure because it declined in popularity? In many cases this has turned into a condemnation of unsuccesful technologies. The criteria is subjective and ultimately ,unencyclopedic. I have also separately nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering Mmx1 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied by editing, Mmx has shown serious judgement failure in the past. He has appointed himself final arbiter of truth on the F-14, see talk on F-14 even though he refuses to recognize any citations contrary to his POV up to Janes Defence, and a VP of Grumman. He has simply followed a link at the bottom of the F-111 page, from the F-14 page, and is simply another example of removing material from the WP without justification. This page is obviously well trafficed and edited, and of use to many people. WP states that deletion of information which does not improve WP is vandalims. In my opinion, this is exactly what Mmx1 is attempting to do. Please do not support this behavior.--matador300 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. --Mmx1 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NPOV, the title in itself is NPOV since how do you decide what is famous and what is a failure. Yonatanh 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV (same applies for List of famous successes in science and engineering which can probably be discussed with this one. SM247My Talk 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Requires cleanup/sources. "Fame" and "failure" are not necessarily POV. Madonna is famous. That's not my POV, it's a fact. The maiden voyage of the Titanic was a failure. Again, not POV, but indisputable fact. Nom is "cruft"-cruft - i.e., crufty use of any word derived from cruft in support of article deletion. List of disasters was voted keep. I don't see a big distinction from a list of failures. Individual failures in the list need review for notability - the article's editors should be encouraged to remove non-notable entries. dryguy 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDisaster has a tighter definition in terms of loss of human life (apparently the list defn is broader). And as the link indicates...it's getting very vague. Every airline crash is apparently considered a "disaster". I would call that list a "disaster." What constitutes a "failure". Is wikipedia a "failure"? Can I list individual wiki pages I consider bad on the list of technological failures? If you can offer a definition we can live with, great. Since I doubt you can, I voted delete.
Comment See the Wiktionary entry for failure, definition 1. No need to redefine a word that is already perfectly well defined. If you want a real challenge, try getting a consensus on the definition of notability. :) Entries that are non-notable should be removed from the article, but the article itself should stay, since it does contain many notable entries. dryguy 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, the word has a definition. But it's a pretty shitty inclusion/exclusion criteria. My question is, can you define inclusion/exclusion criteria that would not make this unmanageably large and still be reasonably straightforward to apply? --Mmx1 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not use the definition of Failure right here in Wikipedia? Particularly the section Failure#Criteria for failure? It seems to me to highlight the inherent problem with this article. --DaveG12345 13:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, inherent NPOV failure. Reader should be able to read articles and decide for themselves whether they are failures. Per nom, the problem is the failure criteria used - inherently problematic, so cleanup will solve nothing. --DaveG12345 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dryguy, the maiden voyage of the Titanic was a failure, but calling it an "engineering failure" IS POV, because you can just as easily blame human error for the accident. Which is why this article should be deleted. BoojiBoy 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't realize Titanic was on the list. I only meant that to illustrate that failure is not neccesarily POV. Wether it belongs on this particular list is another issue. It doesn't affect the validty of entries that are truly about science or engineering failures. (Titanic probably qualifies, since one of the problems was failure of the designers to include enough lifeboats - that was a tragic and notable failure of engineering, but I digress). dryguy 02:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are you guys nuts? This is one of the best pages on the WP. POV is not judged by the article, only that a large number of people have judged a project or product to be a failure. Many entries show failures that were ultimately judged to be successful. PlEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ don't kill it.--matador300 10:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate bolding struck out. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my numerous comments regarding your opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering, they apply equally here. SM247My Talk 11:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ditto. I was interested to read in this list about (e.g.) cold fusion that, "after much hype, claims of success proved false". Simply a glib POV pronouncement. Success/failure (see my above comments) are too vague to provide a workable article topic. There are several commercial failure lists in WP, since commercial failures can be verified. Several prototypes are listed here as failures. Prototypes are a normal step in a design process, they are not "failures" if they do not reach production stage. V/STOL a failure? Seriously? The list - literally - goes on. This is just POV original research, with inclusion ungrounded in WP policies relating to verifiability and reliable sources. The criteria are so broad that anything can be crowbarred into the category, so cleanup will not help. --DaveG12345 13:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Isn't it WP policy that deletion of information without improving WP is vandalism? Mmx1 has shown bad faith in revert many edits on the F-14 page without justification, even with cited. He has refused to accept any citation up to the VP of Grumman nd Janes Defence. Deleting tnis page removes significant information not contained in other articles, and removing this on the basis that declaring something a failure would logically also neccesitate the removal of all the flop pages, computers, movies, education, and the like. Stop this madness now. It just ticks me off how many wiki people simply run around kicking down other peoples sandcastle. --matador300 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate bolding struck out. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe it's an interesting page, and I really don't see the POV problem. Cleanup might be appropriate, but the concept is fine. The page is not judging things to be a failure, but is rather noting things that are considered to have been failures. TomTheHand 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Argh! It appears that User:Wiarthurhu has created a new page called List of famous science and engineering projects considered to be failures, copied and pasted the content of List of famous failures in science and engineering over to that location (minus the AFD notice, of course), and redirected the original page to point at the new one. TomTheHand 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My issue is with the content, not the title. A change of title will not save this article from deletion for POV/NOR failure IMO. Please assume my comments apply to the new page(s). I would guess all other comments above should be considered the same way. The removal of AfD notice and this monkeying around seems to show a general contempt for the AfD process. --DaveG12345 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overbroad and unsourced. Also see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering. Eluchil404 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these lists fail badly without well defined criteria (is something really a failure if it sells poorly but advances the art? Or if early problems are fixed? And so on and so on....) --iMeowbot~Meow 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please don't delete this until we have an opportunity to add citations to all articles. Adding need cits is far less drastic than killing this wonderful article. I have added 4 cits so far, of course Mmx1, who is the mastermind of this bit of malicious vandalism does not accept Aviation Week or Janes Defence Weekly as sources. --matador300 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Users who go through this page are more inclined to destroy this page than the editors who have kept it going. It's a damn shame it's do darned easy to sink an article in this manner, I just hope Mmx succeeds in delete all these lists and makes even more people angry at his antics. He's just a sore loser that I've finally presented enough evidence that's he's relented in his duel to death to keep "F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter" out of the WP. --matador300 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One vote per customer, please. --iMeowbot~Meow 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for whomever gets to clean up after this AfD: The "renaming" mentioned above that happened since this AfD started was a copy-paste move, so all the significant history is still under the original name. Sigh. --iMeowbot~Meow 01:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In my (admittedly brief) time with Wikipedia I have become progressively more frustrated with the phenomenon of premature and/or frivolous AfDs. Apart from the time and effort they consume, and the lack of respect that they show towards the originating editors, where is the virtue of strangling articles at birth? The nominated article violates no policy and addresses a subject of legitimate interest, on which many books and articles, both popular and specialist, have been published. John Moore 309 12:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentThere are ways to write such a list properly such as Films considered the worst ever by basing it on sources. This list is based on the personal opinions of editors, primarly one and the info contained within is inappropriate Original Research and is unsalvageable. --Mmx1 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It should be noted this is evidence that this request for deletion is merely the extension of the edit war from the F-14 / F-111 page. I am the editor in question, I am responsible only for the SST and F-111 sections, both are easily verifiable as having been identifed or called failures. All of these mentions are based on verifiable sources, and I have already revised many of them to include sources of the mention of people who thought they were failures. It is a WP principle that no article of value which can be revised should be deleted. It should also be noted that Mmx1 has shown very poor judgement in retaining his POV that the F-14 was never designed to be an air superiority fighter, I have presented many sources, up to and including the VP and F-14 test pilot of Grumman and Janes Defence, and since he has no acceptable citations, he is free to revert any edit, since all edits are therefore unveriable except by him. It would be tragic if these articles were deleted merely as a tactic by an editor who is not qualified to revert or delete any material from the WP without detracting from its value. And Mmx1, go deface and destroy somebody else's pages. The majority of this article was created by hundreds of other editors who may see their work vanish without a trace because you believe the F-14 wasn't a dogfighter. --matador300 15:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOV issues are solved via dispute resolution, not afd's. Notability issues and such did not hinder List of Christians in entertainment and media. What is a christian? What is Media? They worked it out, do the same here. --Striver 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV - what's "famous" and what's a "failure"? And the way scientific development works, todays failure could be tomorrows success. All of the information can be included in the items article. Rgds, - Trident13 14:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current disclaimer in the article stating "Inclusion in this article can not be used as an objective judgment of whether a project was or was not actually a failure by any particular criterion" pretty much sums up the case for deletion. An admission of the intrinsic unencyclopedic POV nature of the list. I personally don't think this list can ignore WP policy simply by stating "this list ignores WP policy". --DaveG12345 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether a project failed or not is or can be objectively determined and is thus not POV. What makes it famous is its size or importance, which can be POV, but not any more so than any other article on WP. This is a very useful article which has been here for well over a year, and has been nominated AFD as a result of a content dispute. This is no reason for an article of long standing to be deleted. --Blainster 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, take that Mmx1. Let that be a lesson to you tha AFD is not simply another tool to revert an editor you do not agree with. It's simply mind boggling that Mmx1 believes that if I had a hand in the F-111, and SST, and and had citations for both, that would be grounds for throwing out the entire page and work of hundreds of other editors that built it. He would simply toss this article and its newly created opposite twin to the delete happy wiki-wolves. If Wikipedia had ebay feedback, you'd have so many negatives your nose would be bleeding by now. WP will create policies to protect against editors like you, and there will be justice in the end. Jesus is watching you. --matador300 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I hope I am not speaking only for myself when I say, I could not care less about Wiarthurhu/matador300's dispute with the nominator of this AfD, and certainly do not see any reason for that editor to bring this issue up three times in this discussion, when there are clearly problems with the article that are not being addressed, and when on-topic comments made here have basically been ignored. I object to the user Wiarthurhu posting on Blainster's discussion page that "The wiki-thugs are all voting to delete the page", then using that editor's vote to yet again waffle on about the nominator. I would prefer comments to be restricted to the issue of this article's obvious deficiencies. I have seen absolutely nothing of any substance that can save this fatally flawed piece of POV-riddled original research from deletion. I woulda thought user Wiarthurhu/matador300 would at least have made some vague effort to address the concerns voiced here. The silence is deafening. Have the balls to call us "wiki-thugs" to our faces at the very least, but please don't cower beneath the skirts of buddies to prop up this POV/NOR nightmare. Thanks. --DaveG12345 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please review WP:OWN and the disclaimer below the edit box: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and while you're free to muse on your private webspace whatever you'd like, there are guidelines and principles that wiki tries to uphold.
  • Please also note that Wiarthurhu/matador300 has been vote-spamming on contributors to the page in question, including User:Blainster [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] --Mmx1 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The record will show that this editor was a contributor to the Famous Failures article long before either of the two disputants showed up there. I am not a supporter or ally of either of them. Their argument should not be used as an excuse to solve their problem by deletion. WP:AFD states that NPOV is often used [as a reason for deletion], but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion. The reason "unencyclopedic" is not an argument at all but just another way of saying "should be deleted".--Blainster 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki quote refers to content that is NPOV - in the manner that biased content can be edited to be NPOV. But the very criteria and premise for this article is POV. --Mmx1 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beloit Plaza[edit]

A mall with no assertion, (or hint of) notability. Fails WP:CORP, the most relevent standard. I had prod'd this (and four others) after the deletion of Greengate Mall (discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greengate Mall), a n-n closed mall, but it was de-prod'd. I therefore suggest Delete.Inner Earth 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first major mall in its area, built in the 60s, big anchors + very detailed, informative discussion of the site. Could use some references. --JJay 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. The fact it was the first in the area is great, for the area. Nothing in its detailed history is unique or encyclopedic. Tychocat 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being "the first major shopping center in Rock County, Wisconsin", in addition to weasel-worded ("major"?), isn't all that noteworthy even if true. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This depends on what you want to do with the category "Shopping Malls in Wisconsin". I posted this article because Beloit Plaza was part of the posted list; most of the other malls listed are also not notable in and of themselves. As I was striving for completeness within the category, I would say keep it. However, if you choose to delete it, I would argue for deleting the category as well. DiogenesNY 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO one of those cases of some minimally notable thing that we don't need an article on, but if someone bothers to write up a decent non-stubby encyclopedic article on it, leaving it here does no harm I can see, and article may be useful to a small audience. -- Infrogmation 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyova Mall[edit]

A mall with no assertion, (or hint of) notability. Fails WP:CORP, the most relevent standard. I had prod'd this (and four others) after the deletion of Greengate Mall (discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greengate Mall), a n-n closed mall, but it was de-prod'd. I therefore suggest Delete.Inner Earth 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who are not knowledgeable Wikipedia users, can you use basic non-acronym English? The article fits well within the Dead Mall defination before a new owner, and the article could be renamed to 'Cedar Knoll Galleria' before its new owner. Seicer 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies for including so much unnecessary jargon in the nomination. WP:CORP is the guideline for judging whether a corperation is sufficiently notable to have an article written about it in Wikipedia; I believe that this mall doesn't meet those criteria. When I wrote that I 'prod'd' the article, I menat that I had proposed it for deletion. As is any editors right, User:JJay had challenged this proposed deletion by removing the tag - s/he de-prod'd the article. The discusssion surrounding Greengate Mall (linked to above) suggested to me that just because a 'dead mall' could be defined, unless they were is some way notable they should not have an article, I used n-n to abbreviate non-notable. I hope that is a slightly more coherent explaination than my previous attempt! Inner Earth 09:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-written and informative article with obvious historical, regional interest. Could use slightly better sourcing, but also has a number of links --JJay 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good local history article. Chicheley 01:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree the point remains it belongs in some local history book. Tychocat 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's not local history, that's local trivia. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails corporate notability standards. Nothing more than local trivia. --Coredesat talk 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having lived in the WV-KY-OH Tri-State region for some time, I relize the importance of this mall to local development. Not only that, but the mall is an interesting study into the do's and dont's of economic development. A combination of bad management, tenants with corporate financial issues (K-mart and Phar-Mor), and local liquor licensing issues (dry county in which the mall is located vs a wet city nearby with competing mall). While this mall is still having many problems, essentially defunct, many new developments have taken place that may bring the mall back from the brink. New owners, ideas, and business models (including a new theater) are being put into place to turn things around. Deleting this article will not only undermine the "Defunct Malls Project," but also cause Wikipedia to turn a blind eye to an interesting study of economic redevelopment in an ecomically stressed area. Campaigner444 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so do you think that this mall meets WP:CORP? Or that the existance of a wikiproject is sufficient to make us keep articles which would otherwise fail our standards? Inner Earth 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP states that "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." There have been several independent news organizations report on information about the mall, including one listed in the article. Also, the mall has an interesting history and is currently undergoing many changes that could be very important the local area. There are many malls within Wikipedia with much less of a storied history, yet they are allowed to remain without question. In Wikipedia there is a list of defunct malls, which for all practical purposes, this mall falls into. I admit, it needs to be cleaned up to meet the standards of the project, but that can ba accomplished. Here are a couple of links to indpendent articles about the mall if there are any questions. [92][93]Campaigner444 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Square Mall[edit]

A mall with no assertion, (or hint of) notability. Fails WP:CORP, the most relevent standard. I had prod'd this (and four others) after the deletion of Greengate Mall (discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greengate Mall), a n-n closed mall, but it was de-prod'd. I therefore suggest Delete.Inner Earth 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I doubt defunct commercial establishments which are being demolished have any real notability, nothing much is asserted here anyway (except for the first in the region bit, which is a bit dubiou if it is only in respect of a shopping centre). SM247My Talk 23:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only real asserition of notability is being the first indoor mall in a certain region of Georgia. That statement is unsourced, and I'm not sure if that's enough notability to hang on for an article. Yanksox 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and... oh, never mind, just delete. Tychocat 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. GRBerry 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my comments on the other malls (fails WP:CORP, not notable outside the area, blah blah...). --Coredesat talk 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual historical and regional reasons. --JJay 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Style Salmon[edit]

Should be transwikied to Wiki Cookbooks ... discospinster talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Only one editor ( Petri Krohn) supported the article, while there were four clear Delete votes. Even the article creator (Kingsley_Idehen) only supported the concept and article Universal server rather than this brand-name version. Herostratus 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by closer: while it is true that little argument was offered by the nominator or the Delete commentators, Petri Krohn, while arguing far more fully, did not actually offer any indications or proofs of notability, and his actions as noted below make his neutral good faith on the article suspect. Herostratus 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuoso Universal Server[edit]

Advertisement for a product created by its author, KingsleyIdehen (talk · contribs). waffle iron talk 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

  • universal server - created as to support the other article and has no other use.
  • Comment - You are wrong about not having relevance outside "Virtuoso" context. The article now has six incoming links from articles not related to OpenLink/Virtuoso. -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And most if not all of those links were created by Mr Idehen. --waffle iron talk 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quite possible, but irrelevant. The decent thing to do, after creating a new article, is seaching if the article name or similar phrase exist in other articles and linking. That is what I have done hundreds of times for new articles and redirect I have created. (See expectation of privacy, water planet, german states... ) -- Petri Krohn 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SM247My Talk 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, all of it. Tychocat 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, non-notable advertising. --Coredesat talk 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. —Hanuman Das 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As indicated on the Talk page, Virtuoso Universal Server is a product name. This page is supposed to be a simple product description page since "Virtuoso Universal Server" can only imply a product name. As for universal server. What would you call a product that implements NNTP, HTTP, WebDAV, various SQL CLIs, SQL Data Storage, XML Data Storage, SOAP, SPARQL (recently), GData (recently) etc.. When a single TCP/IP Server process implements an array of TCP/IP application level protocols it can only be called something along the lines of a "Universal Server". Please note that Virtuoso is simply the first platform to deliver what is gradually becoming the norm as we head towards the next generation Web & Internet. --Kingsley_Idehen 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term Universal Server was actually used to describe the Informix Object-Relational DBMS in the mid 90's. If you fact check a little, you will discover that the Informix Universal Server was named in line with the fact that it supported primitive and complex user defined data types (Data Blades). Wikipedia is supposed to be a knowledgebase (ultimately). Thus, lets no loose valuable knowledge by trying to rewrite history etc.. It isn't criminal to be new or innovative, or am I missing something here? --Kingsley_Idehen 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Universal server. Good prose on notable subject. You should not use someones self-promotion in an other article against an article that can clearly stand on its own. -- Petri Krohn 14:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Virtuoso Universal Server to OpenLinkVirtuoso. In fact I already did the redirect to remove the duplicated text. On the issue itself, I believe the open source software product is notable and the article should be kept. -- Petri Krohn 14:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reverted the redirect as it violates the boilerplate request not to remove the AfD notice from the article. It could be seen as an attempt to hide the AfD. No vote from me on this one. --Craig Stuntz 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You maybe right on that. Anyway, I removed the content and replaced it with ((mergeto|OpenLinkVirtuoso)). Kept the boilerplate and complaints. -- Petri Krohn 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep for now. Consider this a probationary period in which the article, having now come to the attention of the community, can be cleaned up. The link provided suggests importance in a particular cultural context, which makes at the very least for merge-worthy material. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stejskal[edit]

No reliable sources used. Non-notable under WP:BIO. Ad link has recurred. Possible vanity page. This google search showed only 41 English hits for his full name, most apparently to a medical doctor by the same name still in Czechoslovakia. Reliable sources therein show that he works for a library (in a non-notable role) in Australia, and the adlink only shows three placards by him for sale. Article created by an IP that did nothing else that day and not much else since, adlink reinserted by a user that has only worked on this article. Article has had one removal of the adlink, one copyedit, and an image removeal by Orphanbot in its 7.5 months of existance. Article linked to only by a redirect page. GRBerry 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, please also remove the redirect page, Pepca Stejskal. GRBerry
  • Comment Subject is included in WP's List of Australian artists as "Josef L. Stejskal", but that gets zero Ghits. Needs to be fixed up sharpish with some evidence that this is not just a vani-advert. --DaveG12345 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax, unverifiable and unsourced article. Ghits under 600 suggest nn, though admittedly the foreign-language sites complicate fact-checking. Article history entirely unhelpful to any suggestion of veracity or being encyclopedic. Tychocat 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Josef Stejskal - the Czech article on http://www.bonus.webzdarma.cz/kontakt.html, signed by Professor Petr Oslzlý, cites this person ("dnes česko-australský výtvarník a knihovník, surrealista Pepča Stejskal" = "today Czech-Australian artist and librarian, surrealist Pepča Stejskal") as one of the members of the cultural milieu of Brno in 1970s and does not doubt about his existence. So I think that this proves that Stejskal exists and is notable to some degree.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Studio Collaboration[edit]

Disputed prod. This is one of thousands of Beatles bootlegs in circulation, and it's not remarkable or notable in any way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Beatleg database. I have raised this issue at WT:BEATLES and got no objection there. kingboyk 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unremarkable odds-n-sods bootleg/Maccacruft. --DaveG12345 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. good lord, it's even claimed to be an "unofficial" bootleg... like there's official bootlegs? Why did I waste all those years in college? Why? Tychocat 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually just a bootleg of a Beatle, plus Mr. Costello. --DaveG12345 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one was being charitable, one could suggest a merge to either Flowers In The Dirt or Spike (Elvis Costello album). I'm not feeling charitable. Delete. Ac@osr 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beatles were pretty important at one time. Might as well include their bootlegs. Arteicle is also fairly well done. --JJay 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Lists of school districts in the United States. – Robert 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of school districts in the United States[edit]

The list is far from compete. WP:SCHOOL is doing this work as a category Category:School districts in the United States which is more complete and a better way to handle a list as large as this one would be if you could ever complete it. Vegaswikian 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. The nominator's argument is persuasive, particularly given the example of the Portguese Wikipedia. While Truthbringer's arguments are correct in the general, they do not address this particular instance and he has not brought forth evidence. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist Party (Brazil)[edit]

Here's the deal: This page is one of my own translations, but it was recently deleted on the Portuguese Wikipedia, mainly because it is not yet a registered party in Brazil. It seems as though I may have translated a non-notable party's propoganda in this instance. We do delete a lot of very minor political parties on AfD. I'm bringing it here for review though instead of using db-author, in case someone digs up something to save it... But I no longer feel this is notable, despite my past effort in bringing it here. Grandmasterka 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A party can be notable even if it is denied access for the formal electoral process. Press coverage or public opinion polls would help clarify how notable it is. --TruthbringerToronto 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree on the principle that a party does not need to be registered, but it has to be notable. Unfortunately I am not a Portugese linguist so I cannot determine how far short of the requisite number of signatures they were or if this is a very minor party not worthy of a page. SM247My Talk 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to assert notability (WP:ORG), Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat talk 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Beverley[edit]

Obviously non-notable musician; his "official website" as listed in the article even points out that he is a busker and spends most of his time playing on street corners. I could find no non-Wiki mentions of him, his bands, or his albums on Google. Could be vanity; see Jamie Short, created by the same author. -Big Smooth 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Almost certainly vanity. --DaveG12345 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There have been such things as notable street corner musicians, but this article presents no evidence of notability. If those internationally known artists mentioned were recording covers of Beverley's compositions rather than vice versa, it would be a different case. -- Infrogmation 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Short[edit]

Non-notable musician. I could find no non-Wiki mentions of him, his bands, or his supposed works on Google. Could be vanity; see Patrick Beverley, created by the same author. -Big Smooth 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larsen List[edit]

The behaviour of one person on a message board is hardly material for an encyclopaedia Rat 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Joyous! | Talk 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Junior High[edit]

Tagged cleanup-school since march 2006, no work done on this NN school. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not seeing anything relevant here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this. Also some highly interesting info about the band's accomplishments (needs better source and expansion). --JJay 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although you should already know this, AFD is not cleanup. According to Category:Cleanup by month, there are 114 articles in Category:Cleanup from June 2005, and nearly four times that in Category:Cleanup from July 2005. We are not working on a deadline. Silensor 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability, not all schools are notable. --DaveG12345 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools merit an article. Chicheley 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a recording: "WP:SCHOOL is not policy, schools are not inherently notable." Also, this is a middle school. Middle schools are not notable regardless of how notable its alumni are (we obviously don't have articles on the middle schools that John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush went to). If there's been no cleanup done to assert its notability, then it should be deleted. --Coredesat talk 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Silensor has a good point there. bbx 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.  ALKIVAR™ 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article; I would consider the school notable because of its Band's and Orchestra's accomplishments, regardless of the Alumni. --JCowe 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Silensor. (Someone should write an "AfD is not cleanup" essay.) --Nscheffey(T/C) 07:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup.68.144.102.170 10:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not the place for clean ups Yuckfoo 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Feel free to recreate after release if album proves notable. Xoloz 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastlane (Album)[edit]

As this is a forthcoming album for a debut group this seems a clear failure of the notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC - however not being a music expert I invite views!. BlueValour 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now; I have seen no convincing keep articles. BlueValour 23:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to G-Unit if appropriate, otherwise delete as crystal-balling. --DaveG12345 00:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • save I created this page it is not crystal balling because we know its going to happen and it comes from a proven source XXL magazine straight from their homepage how can you delete that ? I put the link in trust me I can find worse on this website.
  • Comment - The cystal-ball comment refers to the fact that until the album is released no-one knows whether it will be notable. This is an encyclopaedia not a mechanism for showcasing future releases. If you can find worse, fine, please produce AfDs for them. BlueValour 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • save Summer 2006? Why not wait for a month and we'll see how "big" it will be if it really comes out to date... Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 22:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because it is unencyclopaedic at the moment, effectively an advert. BlueValour 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Meadow[edit]

Nursery School and Kindergarten. No notability. Vegaswikian 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Copyvio from the school's website, but not a speedy candidate. Reads like an ad, and from what I can tell, the school isn't even open yet (nothing on the site says it's actually open right now)! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no notability asserted (as there is none to assert). --Coredesat talk 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability evident. -- Infrogmation 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus among established editors, defaulting to keep. Joyous! | Talk 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAR Camp[edit]

This article is basically a horribly POV'ed advertisement for an organisation. It reads like an advertisement; particularly because that's what it is. Delete as spam. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advert spam. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this page useful, fwiw. If there's another POV, then edit the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danfost (talk • contribs) .
  • * This is this user's only edit to date. GRBerry 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NEO standards, which I believe are the relevant one for internet memes. Not enough reliable sources yet. Three day geek fests are not inherently notable. This looks to have the potential of becoming notable, until I see mainstream media references, I don't expect this to be worthy of an article. GRBerry 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Latrippi's work, Keep. I see a pair of mainstream media (i.e. - non-blog) references added, so it now looks to meet the WP:NEO standards. GRBerry 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/Query I see the editorial problems of POV and self-promotion. And I don't have a good feel for the WP:NEO standards, which clearly apply. On that score, quality of writing aside, I wondered, why delete BarCamp but not, say, FooCamp? Then, I noticed, via Talk:BAR_Camp, this BarCamp article has been cited by The Hindu in a piece on new protocols for organizing conferences. A quick Google News search pulled up 3 more similar media references. (I've added them.) So, which is appropriate: serious editing for POV or delete? If delete, could someone clarify how the WP:NEO standards apply to conferences? Latrippi 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further research: Keep (tentative): I think the relevant standard to apply here (in addition to NPOV which can be fixed) is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), and not WP:NEO. BarCamp is the name of a conference (or network of conferences), not a neologism. It is, though, connected with an emerging meme, a protocol for organizing conferences (see Unconference). The notability of BarCamp seems to be, in part, its function as an examplar of this new type of conference-event, in media coverage and for those in other fields wishing to organize a similar event. Latrippi 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, thanks GRBerry! I've now also substantially overhauled the article to address the NPOV issues. Latrippi 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure: I attended BarCampSanFrancisco last weekend, and am now an enthusiast, but before that barely knew what one was. I came to the article afterwards for more info. Latrippi 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a popular world-wide phenomenon. It is not a organization. Anyone who wants to host a un-conference can use their website to discuss, set a date, post media related to it. This article was cited in a Indian newspaper (check talk page). - Ganeshk (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ganeshk, I meant organization in a loose sense: To be a BarCamp, I believe the un-conf needs to be logged on the BarCamp wiki, as mentioned in this Dummy's Guide (see "Who can organize BarCamp"). Latrippi 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For 'Notability' you've got international scope and coverage in the mainstream press (The Hindu, with circulation > 1 million, and Business 2.0, with something like 500k readers) cks 04:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons discussed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International credit card[edit]

DicDef and a vacuous one at that. BlueValour 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 12:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Vacations[edit]

This is probably big enough to be notable, but some people might think otherwise. -TruthbringerToronto 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Vacations is a subsidiary of Expedia Inc and deserves a page just as the like of other Expedia sub-companies such as Hotels.com and TripAdvisor.
- sthakkar 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Alexa ranking of hotels.com: 768. Ranking of TripAdvisor.com: 323. Ranking of this thing: > 40,000. Come here when notable, not to get notable. --DaveG12345 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio [94].--Allen 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not a copyvio any longer (unless somebody reverts my edits). --TruthbringerToronto 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep for now. Thanks for removing the copyvio. DaveG12345, Classic Vacations seems to be more of a traditional travel agency than a website (despite having been bought by Expedia), so I'm not sure Alexa rankings are a fair guide here. --Allen 03:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I will trust your judgment on that, not having heard of them myself. --DaveG12345 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems like a noteworthy tour operator. I don't know where one would find statistics on its market share in the package tour areas where it operates. --TruthbringerToronto 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 10:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam FAQ[edit]

Original research and POV -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NOT A7: "lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks." --DaveG12345 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. WP:NOT A4: "Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind" It may account as self-promotion too (multiple mentions of the author and external link..). GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 01:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC) See below GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per both the above. ImpuMozhi 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above, pretty blatant breach of WP:NOT. SM247My Talk
  • Strong delete, fails WP:NOT in more ways than one. --Coredesat talk 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not here promote the author by mentioning his name multiple time. I am simply clarifying the fact that the information is from a credible person. If there is any part of the answer you would like discuss openly then I am more than willing to do so. you will find that answers are in line with Islamic belief and with evidence of Quran & Hadith. Thus neutral in that sense. If you verify the source and evidence you would most certainly find that the views expressed are factual rather that POV.--Sadullah (Talk) 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should notice that the article doesn't only fail the NPOV requisites but also numerous others like the "no original research" clause. GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author:This is the author Please allow me 1 week to improve this article. Since the subject matter is complex and sensitive. although the work is not mine but I have the permission use it. I will try to make the information as neutral as possible. your help and suggestion is always welcome.

--Sadullah (Talk) 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • this page will only deal with questions that needs to answered in the form of article to maintain NPOV. this not a islamic guide in a general sense. --Sadullah (Talk) 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR. --Musicpvm 20:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, blah, blah... Sandstein 07:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch or Ditch[edit]

Vanity entry, zero references to "switch or ditch" involving cards on Google or Yahoo. 2005 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Steel 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No mention in my edition of Hoyle's, and to achieve that, you gotta be ultra-obscure. --DaveG12345 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only six unrelated Google hits.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Alfvengren[edit]

IMDb bio empty. not-notable. BlueValour 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Her IMDb listing now appears as an external link, as does a listing in a Swedish film industry directory. I think the hit makes her notable. --TruthbringerToronto 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure this person is well-known as a singer in Scandinavia. --DaveG12345 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMDb counts for nothing, but there's an article on the Swedish WP, the song she had a hit with has an article, there's plenty of evidence she's released other material. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC standards of notability ("Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country"). Presumably Magneter charted as well; 160,000 copies sold for a Swedish-language album seems fairly high. Ögon man aldrig glömmer made number two in 1985. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have done a little checking out, and this is definitely a notable singer in Sweden. --DaveG12345 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 09:00Z

Monrovia, Maryland[edit]

In truth, I don't understand this entry. If it is a defined parish or village it is notable. However if, as it seems, it is an informal description of a suburb of a city it is unencyclopaedic and should be deleted. BlueValour 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An unincorporated place is the equivalent of a village, but municipal services such as policing are provided by the county rather than by a municipality. I think it has well-defined borders and most of the characteristics of a municipality except that it lacks a city charter. --TruthbringerToronto 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search produces quite a number of hits. It may not be the most important place in the world, but since Wikipedia has articles on numerous other tiny villages, I say Keep Travelbird 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe articles on unincorporated areas are okay. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Monrovia is the equivalent to a small town in terms of having its own zip code, post office, and other local services. The county (Frederick County) provides other services, as is the case for a large number of towns in Maryland.--Ravensfan5252 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as real place with real communities of interest.Capitalistroadster 02:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin - Speedy Keep - I am happy to accept the advice given by the other editors and withdraw the nomination. BlueValour 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl bazan[edit]

Hair loss doctor - part vanity, part advert unless there is evidence of particular notability in this field. BlueValour 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity and spam. --ColourBurst 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Google news says zero hits, which seems to confirm my suspicion. WilyD 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability evident, looks like spam. -- Infrogmation 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. —Hanuman Das 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found plenty of entries on Google, but this article still looks like spam and probably nn, (isn't everybody a cosmetic surgeon now? --Richhoncho 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_28&oldid=1116775227"