Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio per CSD G12, without prejudice to re-creation if notability can be established and the article rewritten afresh. Although it is unfortunate that the violation was discovered after the AfD was started, we're better off getting rid of the infringing material as soon as possible. — TKD::Talk 13:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ze'ev Smason[edit]

NN pulpit rabbi, no different from any other. WP:BIO. - crz crztalk 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 00:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note how the stub tag mentions notable but the article isn't. Tarret 00:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, Smason is no more notable than any other rabbi.--TBCΦtalk? 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you'd think being "the spiritual leader of [...] the largest orthodox congregation in St. Louis" would make you have more than 35 ghits, wouldn't you? MER-C 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude!! There probably aren't 35 orthodox in St. Louis!! It's like saying, the spiritual leader of the Maltese community in Iowa. - crz crztalk 02:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. MER-C 06:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable.--Arjun 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of why this subject is particularly notable. Seraphimblade 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I know more than one Orthodox Jew from SL, but I'm not sure of the actual size of the community there. The head Rabbi of the largest congregation may be worth an article. According to the website, the synagogue is 100 years old. The fact that Aish has a center there, and that he was its director, may also be worth something. On the other hand, the content in the article was lifted from http://www.nhbz.org/aboutus.asp. --Eliyak T·C 05:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I asked another administrator to delete it on G12. Aish has a couple of dozen centers all over the country and overseas - all their directors are local pulpit rabbis, more or less. Neither the Aish thing nor the age of the shul make a shred of difference. - crz crztalk 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Requesting speedy deletion while there's already a contested AfD going on is petty wikilawyering and contrary to Don't be a dick!. You might be right on the exact rule that applies, but that doesn't make it a good thing to do. Unfocused 05:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I am a lawyer, and I am on wiki... but seriously, would you rather I zap it outright as a speedy copyvio? Contested or not on notability, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? - crz crztalk 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to article about his congregation. Largest Orthodox Jewish congregation in St. Louis is sufficient to suggest that is very likely someone from St. Louis will come here looking for more good, neutral, encyclopedic information about the guy in the foreseeable future. And that's the kind of desire for information that we can serve better than anyone else. Un focused 05:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Alan Coey[edit]

Non-notable. Only hint of notability is a posthumous award from a minor organization for fighting communism overseas. It's not clear how many people get this award or if he got it for doing something particularly exemplary. --C S (Talk) 00:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem to be notable, and there does not seem to be much more information that can be put into the article to make it notable. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he's written a book, which is out of print. MER-C 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a minor icon of the neo-Nazi movement[1] it's pretty clear he fails WP:BIO. Went to fight communist "Negroes" right after college, got killed, end of life story. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this article is an example of disinformation on Wikipedia in a post at the blog Crooked Timber. Suggest we self-correct. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There might be an interesting story there, but not really enough evidence of notability at the moment. --Dgies 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless the article is rewritten to prove notability. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absolutely NN Xdenizen 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close for failure to advance a reason in a half hour - crz crztalk 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual chic[edit]

Delete/merge with Bisexual. Arniep 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what reason? Mdwh 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Classicism[edit]

Non-noteworthy neologism and original research. A search for "Matthew Church" "post classicism" turns up only a single cached blog post. Adding a hyphen brings the same results. Note also that this article is not about Post-Classical Music as musicians and art historians use the term; it's an entirely different term. Shimeru 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Delete Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending further citation. I can find references to various musical styles identified as 'post-classicism', but they do not seem to match the material in this article. I also share Shimeru's inability to find references to 'matthew church', other than the rather terse link in the article. Kuru ^talk 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete or re-write The term seems to exsist, but the article seems to pretty much non-notable. As above, more references needed to keep it as is. Robovski 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a repeat offender, only giving itself a new name this time. I remember an AfD not too long ago for a term describing some supposedly "new" music genre called "Classical rock," or something like that, which was claimed to be invented by someone named Matthew Church, and it was basically described as a new genre of music blending classical with rock (gee, that's new?). I tried searching, but I couldn't find the AfD, but when I read this, it definitely rang a bell. Anyone else remember seeing this before too? Wavy G 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was wrong. I found the Afd discussion [2], but it wasn't this guy (although, the description and the style of the article were extremely similar to this one). I don't know why, but that name "Matthew Church" just sounded extremely familiar. Wavy G 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the rare event when this term is used, it doesn't refer to the subject of the article. Opabinia regalis 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and likely vanity (Ace church (talk · contribs) = Matthew Church? Has only edited on this article and on Matt church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was speedied as nn-bio.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I knew that name sounded familiar. Wavy G 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by all excellent reasons by WavyG.--Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I pointed out later that I was wrong--not that I don't think this article is non-notable (enough negatives in that sentence?) by any means, but I'd hate to see an article deleted based on false information. Although the subject is clearly a non-notable neologism, and it would seem, it is also a conflict of interest. Wavy G 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --Durin 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The David (rock group)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC - crz crztalk 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom of my Russian friend. "The David released only one album, the obscure 1967 Another Day, Another Lifetime." Yeah, one obscure album, no notable members, no record label listed... no notability. -- Kicking222 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kicking222 has hit the nail on the head. MER-C 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how? --Wafulz 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent coverage. Kappa 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly- we have one guy who writes reviews for obscure albums and bands (ie ones that most people ignore) and a Spanish link which is the same thing, but translated. --Wafulz 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm if this Spanish thing is a translation, where did the word "magistral" come from? Kappa 11:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're really reaching if you think having a few extra words here and there doesn't make it a translation. Have you actually read the Spanish article? It has the exact same content. --Wafulz 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess you are right and I'm clutching at straws here. A few extra words like this "Plasmatra" thing Hansen used and the band members' names must have just popped up during the translation process. Kappa 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this article doesn't assert a single thing about the band that passes WP:MUSIC. Darkspots 05:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does too. Kappa 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'M GONNA TELL THE TEACHER ON YOU!! - crz crztalk 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not! Wait, I mean delete. Exceedingly non-notable. Opabinia regalis 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits or singles, one album in the mid 60s, and a brief description by one author who writes extensively about the topic. It doesn't have enough sources to justify an article. --Wafulz 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Also, the band does have an AllMusic listing [3] (despite the article deceptively listing an answers.com link as an AllMusic bio) and this article states the band has had recent recognition due to being included on several compilations (such as the "Nuggets" cds), and the band seems to be somewhat notable for its use of the "invented" instrument, the "plasmatar."

The "plasmatar", after a short search turned up 54 ghits, apparently was used once, to make this album. If the group and the album isn't notable, neither is the plasmatar they invented.--Darkspots 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't mean to infer that the "plasmatar" itself is notable, I was just inferring that the group may be encyclopedic for its use of such an instrument (among the other reasons). Wavy G 07:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete One non-notable album does not a WP:MUSIC pass make. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The All Music Guide biography establishes that they are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Kappa, plus I've a strong interest in psychedelic music of the 1960s (not just the more pop-like stuff that remains in play on classic rock and oldies stations). This is a good example of a group that was thought to have a lot of promise, yet faded after the first effort. No useful purpose served by deleting this. Un focused 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in the psychedelic music world. Heck, even Antonio Vivaldi's work was obscure and unknown until the 1930's, but that doesn't mean he wasn't notable. --Oakshade 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The AMG article lends some credence, but WP:MUSIC serves the purpose of keeping oodles of non-notable band articles out of Wikipedia and this band doesn't come close to meeting its criteria. -Big Smooth 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does too... Kappa 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not. The All Music Guide articles describes their one album as "totally obscure" and notes that it was released by "an organization formed by their manager." Although the idea of a harder-rocking Left Banke does sound interesting. But we have to to keep the 'pedia from being overrun by obscure garage bands, lest we be destroyed in the Great Fire that awaits all mortals. Herostratus 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge --Durin 16:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Magazine[edit]

Non-notable magazine. Kowabunga! - crz crztalk 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) as the magazine is for that series of the show.Robovski 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, seems like an article about the magazine could stand on its own--if the magazine was genuinely as popular as this article purports it to be (Which, at the height of TMNT fame, I'm sure it was). Wavy G 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mention the magazine on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) then delete.--Hús ö nd 06:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles article per above reasons. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge per Húsönd above. Sandstein 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - too short, but can be a part of the main article. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Main Article Page lacks stand alone notability but it would not hurt to merge it into the main Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article for the already mentioned reasons. HamishMacBeth 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Nusance[edit]

Nn band, does not assert notability. Speedy a7 contested. Amarkov ^babble 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely nn. Only 139 ghits, the most relevant of which is the usual Myspace and blog crap. Note that the discography section asserts notability, though. MER-C 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be a lot of attributable sources out there about this person. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only albums are self-published. "Up and coming" bands are not notable. Should have been speedied except for contested notability. --Dgies 06:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. Seriously. A 1-year old band with zero notability. (|-- UlTiMuS 11:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The band's notarioty is not well established. Does not meet WP:Music standards.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - not notable at all. Xdenizen 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - non-notable band. Timrem 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep after rewrite. Xoloz 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphysics[edit]

Proded by Jimbo as 'abject nonsense on a stick', I'm undeleting this as per policy as the prod has been objected to on the grounds it may be 'notable nonsense on a stick'. No vote. --Doc^g 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on the grounds that I've heard of it before and there are numerous books about the subject (see below). The use of the word "nonsense" is a bit confusing in this situation, since many people would call the subject of this article nonsense even though it is not nonsense in the Wiki sense of the word. --- RockMFR 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: A search on Google Books gives numerous results from reliable sources [4] --- RockMFR 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are books that contain the word paraphysics, frequently as a synonym for parapsychology. They're not necessarily books about paraphysics. And there are only 39 unique results, many of which are works of fiction or books from uber-small or vanity presses. Not what I'd call reliable. -- Vary | Talk 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete unreferenced substub which has no business having a table of contents. Three lines of content (one of which is a direct quote, two of which are unsourced claims), and a link farm for 'Quantum Magick' web sites. Words in the actual article - 78. Total number of external links and 'see alsos' - 40. Absurd. Article appears to be more an excuse for links than an attempt to explain the subject.

I've heard the term, too, but that doesn't mean it needs a wiki article. If someone who knows the subject feels like taking a stab at re-writing a real article, I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion, of course, but I can't even begin to determine notability or verifiability a non-article like this one. -- Vary | Talk 01:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable articles shouldn't be deleted just because they suck (which this one definitely does). --- RockMFR 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before we can even deal with notability, the article has to be verified. This one isn't. But while we're on the subject of notability, how notable can a subject be when the top google hit is a free AOL member page? At most, the subject might rate a dicdef on wictionary, because it does seem to be true that some people use it to mean 'attempting to explain the paranormal scientifically.' -- Vary | Talk 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepIf you ask any atheist, wich i believe most people today are, they would say that even god is nonsense. Should we delete the god article because of that? And anyone who is interested in paranormal, (wich you would agree to calling nonsense) would be highly interested in this subject. Please read this article from about.com, and visit Paraphysics Research Institute before you make any judgements. - openforbusiness
~~Delete~~. The existence of organisations with 'paraphysics' in their name does not mean that their organisations and this term should be covered in an encyclopaedia. That requires reliable sources independent of those who coin the phrase in the first place, and so far all we have is the About.com link which doesn't actually mention the word 'paraphysics' anywhere. Article as it currently stands is a thinly-disguised spam directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources we could always rename the article to paranormal vs. physics if that would make you feel better? Its all the same, and after all this is a pretty big area of science. Paraphysics has 18,800 hits on google, and here's another interesting link. The deletion of this page would be a great loss for paranormal research of any kind.. And if you by any chance should be interested in books, they have a pretty wide range of choises at amazon.com.. 84 books to be excact. thank you. user:openforbusiness
- Changing to abstain. I can't support deletion after the work Uncle G's done, but there still seem to be varying coinages of the word 'paraphysics' (which is, in the end, just someone adding the word 'para' to 'physics') and after reading the article I don't know why I should care about any of them; they all seem to be expounding pseudoscientific justification for varying degrees of New Age nonsense. I can't tell from the article whether any have any more importance than the others, and I'm confident that no-one is going to be able to do a better job of clarifying this than Uncle G, so I don't see this improving. (Though I can see it getting worse as POV-pushers get back to work on the article.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. First, reliable sources are everywhere: Amazon, Google, etc. Second, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that that subject should not be written about. Lets say that you don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean nothing should be written about it? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't about who believes in what. The 'nonsense' comment in the prod referred, I think, to the content of the article, not to the subject. If I wrote a three line nonsense article about the queen of england, it'd still be nonsense, even if the subject was not. But the point is not that some people believe it's hooey, it's that there have been no reliable sources provided proving notability and verifying the article's statements. As I said above, the top google hit for the subject is an AOL member page. That's not what I call a reliable source. So, as I said, if anyone can make this article meet wikipedia policies before the AFD is up, providing verifiable sources, cleaning up the nonsense and making it something more than a dictionary definition, I'd be willing to reconsider my position. But if it isn't done in five days, it's not likely to happen once the AFD closes, so better to delete it and let whoever comes along next looking to write a real article start fresh than to let this unverifiable glorified link farm stay on wikipedia on the off chance that someone might replace it with a useful article. -- Vary | Talk 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- well if the first result that pops up in not a "reliable source", i would say at least 1 out og 18800 are pretty good ods. but i think what we need is an expert who can actually write something intelligent about this matter, and not just deleting it. cause i dont think that's gonna make it any better. then at least the next person who seeks to write something, will have a little something to start with, or, until he comes along people can have a little something to read, withouth having to google around for hours. - ofb
  - If you can find a reliable source on google that supports the text in this article, please do provide one. But saying 'there must be one somewhere' doesn't count. And if you think you can find someone who can write a sourced, verifiable article on the subject that proves its notability, then please do. But leaving this one in place hoping that someone will find some reliable sources for it won't make anything any better, either. We can't leave an unverified, unsourced article up 'so people can have a little something to read.' WP:V is not negotiable. -- Vary | Talk 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fittingly for the subject, the article is only barely coherent. If someone should feel so inclined, they can write an intelligible article on the topic later, but there's no point keeping this junk around until they do. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am now writing the article, and i will use the next couple of days to this. I am no expert, but i will write at least a little page that is verifiable. is this good enough? i found a page with very useful links btw. ofb
Delete. Since Jimbo's prod, the article has changed from an abject nonsensical uncategorized and uncommented linklist to an abject nonsensical article structure with no discernible article. If this is notable, I'm not sure how to evaluate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, random accumulation of unsourced nonsense. Sandstein 07:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Keep after creditable rewrite. Sandstein 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already stated by others, almost all web-based uses of this word are synonyms for the paranormal. Even if the word was first used in the late nineteenth century, the definition given by the article is a neologism. The rest of the article is a collection of links to loosely-related concepts. Article contradicts itself -- states "Paraphysics is rarely associated with any kind of occult practise" yet over one third of the articles linked to are under the heading of "Occult." Fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, WP:NEO. SWAdair 08:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. After UncleG's rewrite it is a completely different article. Wow, what a difference! Great job, UncleG. SWAdair 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per original prodder. Kavadi carrier 08:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless as it stands, not coherent, fails to meet any kind of verifiability or notability standards QuiteUnusual 09:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As it is now, the article is incorrect, and the subject is not all that notable to demand a keep in spite of that. To creator: you can copy the contents to your userspace if you are going to rewrite it. But, if so, first write a coherent and objective article, or just stub, and then copy to mainspace, recreating it. But with valid and referenced content. This is a subject demanding strict adherence to WP:V and WP:RS. Now it's a completely different article, nothing has left of the original one, except some links. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try now. Uncle G 13:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, keep the transformed artifact. I never knew a word could be notable for escaping precise definition. :-) Kavadi carrier 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see above) CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles about abject nonsense on sticks. —Cryptic 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is cringe-inspiring ugly; the subject is hudu guru nonsense. But apparently at least one notable publication has taken the time to refute it. That makes it a topic that may need to be referenced in the future.--Ling.Nut 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on a stick. That was quite a save. —Cel ithemis 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
go uncle G! thanks a lot dude, you rock like granite.. but can we just forget about this thing now?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.8.48.88 (talk • contribs) .
Keep, although it's still (not knocking UncleG) rough. humblefool ® 01:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is approvingly discussed by people like Brian Josephson and Anthony Leggett. I am going to add the relevant links. Stammer 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is completely irrelevant whether "paraphysics" is rubbish or not. This is a well known topic and deserves an article. McKay 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give Uncle G a barnstar on a stick. Nice job. -- nae'blis 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term has been in use for decades and I personally own several copies of the Journal of Paraphysics, the earliest of which dates back to the 70's. - Solar 15:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason to cover parapsychology and not one of its sub-categories. Surely Wikipedia doesn't have to be exactly the same as other encyclopedias, which might edit out an article like this merely on the grounds that they don't want the expense of printing it, or it's merely a branch of another field. It is informative. But put the definition first, not the non-definition. Martinphi 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal from afd? If someone wants to discuss the article, discuss it at the article.. ofb, 89.8.43.197 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting mailing list message here that might be relevant [5] (just for the hell of it). --- RockMFR 01:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm late to the party, I see, but the rewrite is a huge improvement. Only a 'weak' because I still can't sort out exactly how widely used the sense of the term described in the article is. And if the phrase 'quantum magick' finds its way back into the article, it had better bring a credible source with it. ;) -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Barely passing through for me. The article itself is a tad away from utter incohorence, and could do with a complete paraphrase/rewrite. However, despite the murkiness of the content, it presents to be a notable and verified topic. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs attention, but who else will keep the parapsychologists company? Robovski 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Milenski[edit]

While there does appear to be some notability here, there is also the larger issue of WP:COI (don't want to use the dreaded "V" word). If deletion is not appropriate, I recommend userfy. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep but needs wikification and sources. I have seen worse articles out there that has some purpose. I think it is a stretch to delete it. Tag it for wikification and sources and see what happens. Chris Kreider 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Chris, and, per Google, seems notable enough in the LA opera scene, however active that is. --Steve 23:34, 26 October 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, — CharlotteWebb 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming the claims are verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some sources although strictly speaking the article should be made a stub—I could not find most of the information in the cited sources. Kavadi carrier 09:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As most of the article was written by Mmilenski (no other contributions), it appears to fail WP:AUTO. Caknuck 09:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per "If in doubt, don't delete." Mentioned in LA Times article, etc. Agree with probable WP:AUTO as above, but on balance feel it is outweighed by other evidence.--Ling.Nut 20:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CANUSA Flag[edit]

This is not an encyclopaedia article, but appears to be more of a blog or opinion page. NMChico24 01:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is ironic, making an article page about deleting one. Alright NMChico24, I'll play along, please state why this seems like a blog or opinion page to you. Duhman0009 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The CANUSA (short for CANADA USA) flag is a way to end the Canadian and American flag debates on Wikipedia talk pages. Don't you just love self-references, especially in the first sentence? MER-C 01:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like this are to be expected in something that was created by someone. If articles created by someone weren't allowed, then why does this exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Also, I need to add that it's against Wikipedia rules to make fun of a user AKA, kick him while he's down. Duhman0009 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn icon; it appears as though the author is attempting to make the icon popular, rather than writing about an icon that already is. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The icon didn't exist before I made it up. I don't think you quire understood the article. Duhman0009 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This "article" does not assert the notability of its subject, a Wikipedia policy proposal for a specially created image. Duhman0009's comment on this page suggests that he does not understand WP:AfD, and I would guess that he may be confused about the main namespace as well. --Maxamegalon2000 02:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you were to have created that page, what would you have made different? Duhman0009 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - since it is copied from Egyptian Arabic/Swadesh list and the changes unreferenced (or openly stated as needing checking) I won't put it on the transwiki list, but if anybody wants it copied to their userspace to transwiki it themselves just ask. Yomangani ^talk 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levantine Arabic / Sawdesh List[edit]

Half of the list is basically a rip off of Egyptian Arabic/Swadesh list, which makes the article largely inaccurate, and the rest is a sort of vague attempt at a pan-Levantine idiom that doesn't account for some significant differences between the Levantine dialects. Unencyclopedic. The Swadesh list series are already being nominated for a transwiki, but this one should simply be deleted. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 09:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hamada2 19:30, 29 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete - that debate now forms a precedent. MER-C 02:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and at any rate WP:WINAD. Transwiki if anyone is so inclined. Sandstein 07:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete as Dmcdevit put it, this list'll be happier in Wiktionary. Kavadi carrier 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still concerned about accuracy issues if the list were to be transwikied. The list looks like it was copied from Egyptian Arabic/Swadesh list then a few modifications here and there were made. You can see at the end of the article that it still has the Hinds & Badawi Egyptian Arabic dictionary as a reference, even though the article is about Levantine Arabic. Also, Levantine is too diverse to have just one list for. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thievery UT[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Ghits only produces the expected forums, game sites and Wikipedia mirrors. MER-C 10:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please google "Thievery UT" without the underscore, as it gives different (more) results. I don't know if this is a wikipedia bug or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.98.50 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:SOFT, no claim to notability or external sources. Sandstein 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as an ex-player I'd better not vote, however there was one published source: Issue 102 of PC Gamer UK had a whole sidebar covering it [6]. The scan is now broken and the Wayback Machine's copy is faulty, but I remember seeing it way back when and it didn't look Photoshopped. This incarnation of the article doesn't mention it, however, so take that as you will. Garrett^Talk 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - In addition, it was covered a few months back in PC Zone as well. The Kinslayer 08:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you scan either of those two magazines? I checked the magazine archive, but neither issue has been registered as being available. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wish I could, but I don't have access to a scanner, but I'll look through my back issues tonight and provide an issue number at least. The Kinslayer 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can give me an issue number, I may be able to get scans of PC Zone. - Hahnchen 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Got it. Issue 167, May 2006, Page 122, bottom left column :D The Kinslayer 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I do have magazines dating to the mod's release in 2001 but don't have anything recent so I can't get you the scan. - Hahnch e n 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydweeb]: Is it so hard to assume good faith and not expect our editors to be lying about such a thing? At the very least, you could just take thirty seconds to make a google search before demanding scan, getting which is somewhat more time-consuming. The search I hope no one seriously considers an idea that a lot of people could be coherently writing on forums since 2002 in a plot to to keep this 2006 article in WP. And this is not the first magazine article about this mod, as mentioned below. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a developer, but I'd note that Thievery was last mentioned earlier in the year in a retrospective in PC Gamer UK, and several times before that around its release, in various magazines and websites. I have scans but can't upload them here for copyright reasons. It is primarily notable for being the first multiplayer stealth fps (that we know of) and heavily influenced the multiplayer mode in the Splinter Cell series. External links are in the article. This page is also linked to by the Unreal Tournament page, Mods section. Also, Black Cat Games is now a commercial developer, currently doing Alien Swarm: Infested over the Steam network - furthermore, a commercial sequel (Nightblade) to Thievery is currently in development. I would conclude that this article needs expansion and a notability section, certainly not a deletion, so a removal of this tag would be appreciated.User:RobToujours
- Comment The above comment by RobToujours was modified by IP editor 83.70.108.85 – see the edit history for specifics. KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the interests of disclosure, I was a level designer on this mod. I agree with Rob, and though I see a value judgement or two in the text that merit editing, I think the Thievery UT page should remain on Wikipedia. I would also like to add something on this specific debate that is relevant to mods in general. Browsing Mod_(computer_gaming), I see plenty of other mods with pages on Wikipedia. I think mods are a very important and culturally significant trend in game development, but talking about them in any kind of "professional" manner is very difficult. They are an online phenomenon, and any intersection with physical media is an adjunct to their existence (such as exposure in print magazines, inclusion on cover discs or Game of the Year editions of the titles they're based on, etc.). In addition to that, the learning and production that goes into a mod is *cultural* practice, rather than *industrial* or *academic* practice. This means there is very little to reference save the mod itself and community websites.User:Nachimir — Nachimir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MER-C 02:04, 5 November 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, KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did that PC Zone source pan out? How about the PC Gamer UK, can anyone confirm that one? If it really has gotten the press (and it's more than a passing mention), then I think it's a keep. If it doesn't have that kind of verification, though, I'm not so sure. Shimeru 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes and no. I have the physical article right here by my keyboard, but I've got absolutely no way to provide any proof that the article exists beyond me saying so! The Kinslayer 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep It can still be listed in bibliographical manner. Seems it's gotten some other press, too. Shimeru 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep - This mod is regularly mentioned on major sites. Considering magazines, do the google search and another one - the results mentions that it was reviewed and put on coverdisk. Especially check this one: http://www.ttlg.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-55632.html :

"Check out the October 2002 edition of PC Gamer. On page 116, there is an article about Thievery entitled "The Unlikeliest Mod Ever". It is definitely a positive article describing the mod and also has some comments from the Thief III team. Be sure to check it out!"

And this one: http://www.ttlg.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-55734.html

I'll add that WP:SOFT is a proposed guideline, and nothing more. Of course, it would be a good idea for article editors to add these magazine articles to list of references or further reading. It would also be a good idea for voters/debaters to assume good faith and take 30 seconds to check correctness rather than demand scans. However, here the subject is clearly notable enough.

I think it pretty much sums up this debate. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs more third-party sources to support notability. --Alan Au 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Xdenizen 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IGN Mod Watch entry. ShackNews article. Gamer's Hell article. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T3ROBOT[edit]

non notable class project; prod removed. Brianyoumans 02:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because right now, it's non-notable, but if it came out, it would be notable, so I'm somewhat divided on this article, but leaning delete. WikiBot 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, but tell us about it once it's done and working. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Seraphimblade 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A computer playing tic-tac-toe? Been there, done that (with tinker toys, no less!). Non notable, unless it uses tic-tac-toe to figure out nuclear war is unwinable. --Transfinite 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw this one during RC patrol and did not bring it to AfD only because it was prodded already. Not notable project.--Hús ö nd 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relavent ghits = no media coverage. It's simply something that's been done before, better. --Daniel Olsen 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a crystal ball. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable non-class project. JIP | Talk 09:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Many people working on robotic arms, and as for the tic-tac-toe playing, I knew a guy who build a tic-tac-toe player out of transistors in 1971, so that's not remotely groundbreaking. Fan-1967 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and POV methinks. Xdenizen 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just removed material from the article which would have shown notability; I was unable to verify any of it (see talk page). --Brianyoumans 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable project. We can't have pages on every university project. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 06:31, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Mike Andersen[edit]

Appears to be autobiographical. Subject has very few ghits. Initial "reference" links were just pointers to the homepages of a few radio sites. Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. --Wolf530 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The very few google hits are the commercial radio awards that subject has received, the only thing that establishes notability. Subject appears to be on a major wikipedia marketing campaign, he added his name to the Triple M article in a seemingly out-of-place "image production" category, as well as creating the RMK article to highlight his voiceover career. --Darkspots 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Darkspots. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bum darts[edit]

Unencyclopaedic, non-notable, unlikely to ever become anything more than a dicdef. Exploding Boy 02:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources cited and no notability asserted. Seraphimblade 02:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above --Wolf530 (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, I've seen comedians perform it on stage on live television. Sadly, I don't have any references for this. --Wafulz 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to have been made up one day. MER-C 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable party game, little potential for expansion, lacks sources. JIP | Talk 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now, does not seem notable, but rather a practical joke awaiting practitioners. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hut 8.5 12:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above TheRanger 13:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there was an episode of Family Guy which showed the US Supreme Court playing a game like this. Seano1 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute, but not notable. Zap it. Xdenizen 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No more and no less notable than a whole lot of party games in Category:Party games or most video/computer games for that matter. I won't say anything about pokemon characters. This game has been in existence for quite a while; I was introduced to it in 1991 or 1992, where it was called asshole darts. I have a special affection for this article, as I used it as the example of how complete Wikipedia is to a friend. If Wikepedia is to continue being a compendium of current popular culture, the article should stay. While there are no sholarly article on it that I know of, there is a large number of references and descriptions to it on the web. "Bum darts" gets 3,250 google hits, "Butt darts" gets 689, and "asshole darts" gets 34, mostly about the game. The article originally referenced a Dave Barry blog but this was removed under the dubious assertion (in this case) that blogs are not an appropriate reference. See this diff [[7]]. See also [8], [9]. Bum Darts was also the topic of a column in the Regina Leader-Post in 2000. Luigizanasi 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A blog by a nationally syndicated columnist is, I believe, an appropriate reference. I've added it back in, bum darts is a well known game, it's seen in popular culture (even an episode of Family Guy where the Supreme Court plays bum-darts as an initiation). Themindset 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally useful, adds to the common store of knowledge. Sure, it could be beefed up a little, but great oaks from little acorns grow. And if it's good enough for the US Supreme Court, it's good enough for me.--Legalbeagle001 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of fictional historical events[edit]

Incomprehensible nonsense. Half of the entries fail to state to which fictional universe is being referred, a disproportionately large number of the entries seem to be about the Scrooge McDuck universe, the article has the potential to be longer than the list of non-notable living and deceased persons, et cetera, et cetera. This is basically all the articles on timelines of individual fictional universes crammed into one. How many times is this "chronology" going to list the pre-1945 assassination of Hitler? The obliteration of the universe? I'm sure the editors of this article are all working in good faith, but this just isn't going to work. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only on account that mulitple universes, in this account, could cross over and contradict each other. It just doesn't work so well. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is NO WAY we can manage a timeline of fictional historical events. My bet is we would get about 10,000 assasinations in each year. -Amarkov ^babble 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia per nomination, but offer it to the Fictional Characters wiki at wikia.com if anybody wants to maintain it there. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly strong delete Not to attack any editors in particular, as I didn't check the history to see which (or how many) editors have contributed to this article, but this is one of the worst and most pointless articles I've ever seen. -- Kicking222 03:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons cited above. Just...eurgh - what a bad idea for an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just started List of fictional timelines. I'm guessing this should serve whatever the intended purpose of present article under discussion is. Redirect? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds reasonable enough, and possibly manageable. BTW Scrooge McDuck has his own universe?? Tubezone 05:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, Timeline of fictional future events from 2005. I thought I remembered something more recent but can't find it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If really done "correctly" this thing would get longer then the "list of non-notable persons" above. (Also, per WP:BEANS, now you just know someone's going to pull that one. ;) ) Seraphimblade 08:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and title should be worth a mention in WP:FREAKY or WP:BAI. Kavadi carrier 09:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment perhaps WP:BJAODN? —Mitaphane _talk 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. utcursch | talk 10:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but preserve this somehow due to its specific entertainment value. The mix of events such as Albert Einstein travels back in time and kills Adolf Hitler and Stan Marsh et al watch the R-rated Canadian film Asses of Fire is almost mind-blowing. And Scrooge McDuck has his own universe, of course :) --Ouro 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list could eventually contain just about every event in just about every work of fiction ever created, which would be pointless in the extreme. Hut 8.5 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is completely unmanageable, and can only go downhill.-- danntm ^T _C 18:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ack! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, indiscriminate info. I can't believe this survived an AFD. I could see why someone might want it a certain fictional universe to provide some sort of context of fictional history, but this article is just a random list of fictional events that doesn't give the reader any sort of context at all. I can't imagine what this would be useful for. —Mitaphane _talk 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nonsensical gobbledygook. Xdenizen 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! Interesting article! Plus, Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingness is not a criterion for inclusion. And the purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to catalog ALL human knowledge. -Amarkov ^babble 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we have such ambitions? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A given AfD is really not a great place for discussions in the strength, weakness, or necessity of the deletion policy or Wikipedia's mission as a whole. There are appropriate places for those debates though, you may wish to check the village pump.

Seraphimblade 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Have a good night! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Please note that User:Le Grand Roi du Citrouilles has been going through and copy/pasting this argument into about fifteen AfD's (as of this writing). In no case are the merits of the individual case discussed. Seraphimblade 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've only pasted the arguments on articles that I feel should be kept and I have varied my statements on a few when necessary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is correct. Not every reason given is exactly the same and the user seems to have varied posts more after being mass attacked on talk page. Also, I vote Keep --172.148.28.36 21:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) — 172.148.28.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you advocate a Keep for any particular reason, or are you just advocating it in general? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I advocate a Keep, because this article is convenient and helpful for anyone interested in getting a clear sense of some key fictional timelines and the timelines are generally associated with widely familiar fictions that have broad appeal and interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, just remember that you can only advocate something the once. The fact that you appear to have done so once while logged in and once while not logged in doesn't allow you to advocate twice. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will become huge, and unmaintainable. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as one huge unworkable unencyclopedic indiscriminate mess. Sandstein 06:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely the most poorly conceived article I have ever seen. To try and list all events in fiction is Quixotic; to list them all together within one chronology is completely insane. Postdlf 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Timelinecruft? That's new to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, will this eventually include the plotline of every book, TV series, movie, play, short story, radio show, and zoetrope ever written? Obviously unmaintainable. (And what is with the Scrooge McDuck fixation?) Andrew Levine 06:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating such a list is original research. Delete. --Pjacobi 13:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete indiscriminate list of unrelated non-notable non-events, do we add the date that grandpa said he almost caught the big one that got away, too? Carlossuarez46 19:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but also think that another solution would be to have separate articles with separate fictional historical timelines for key fictions and maybe a category or mister list for each article (if something like this exists and I missed it, please point me in the right direction!). --64.12.117.14 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of fictional timelines. Postdlf 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! That is helpful! --152.163.100.200 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copy title to WP:DAFT, and editorialy recreate a redirect to List of fictional timelines. In that order. Eluchil404 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Paul Cyr 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Windows Vista[edit]

An entire page of criticism is not necessary or encyclopedic, especially for a product that isn't even available yet (let alone one that is). Unknownwarrior33 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is a source for fact as best we know it, this article is editorial opinion. Calling "BS" on this one. Vista has pluses and minuses, unbalanced non-facts not welcome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.54.147 (talk • contribs) — 71.107.54.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - Generally you might be right, but Vista has cooked up a huge amount of criticism before its release. Merging it with the Windows Vista article would swamp an already large article. --Aim Here 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criticism is perfectly encyclopaedic as long as it's written in a neutral manner and is well-sourced, as this page appears to be. Also, as mentioned above, it would be inappropriate to merge to the existing Vista article as the article would become cumbersome. --NMChico24 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an appropriate article spinout. I went in and added a {{main}} template to the top of the article, to reflect the article's child status. --RoninBK_ETC 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this sub-article as a natural part of the Wikipedia:Summary style article development process. Windows Vista is already very lengthy, and it's only going to get harder to maintain through 2007 as attention to Vista increases. Vista isn't even out yet, and we already have an article that's almost double the length of Windows XP! Yikes. Speaking of Windows XP, it does have a seprate criticism article, too: Common criticisms of Windows XP. -/- Warren 05:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MER-C 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided a neutral pose & sources are provided, and it doesnt turn into a attack page. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable, criticism appropriate, and let's leave content improvement discussions there. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A very notable subtopic of a high-profile article. There are tons of "criticism" articles out there, so even if I agreed with the nom, which I don't, then I still wouldn't have any inclination to move for a delete, simply out of custom and continuity. (|-- UlTiMuS 11:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable article with quite a few references - I can't see any reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 13:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the criticism is well sourced and written in a neutral POV TheRanger 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep criticism of beta's is fine and notable for such an anticipated software release. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well referenced article on a notable subject. Xdenizen 01:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! b/c useful and Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,
Keep. Well referenced, and not something that can be merged back into the long main article. Perhaps it can be altered to Responses to Windows Vista, including positive reviews.--Cúchullain ^t/

c 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Importance of the topic being criticized outweights the reasoning given for deletion. IgorSF 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Migrating all of the accurate information over to the main Vista article would promote unbalance; the main article would end up being more about the criticism than the actual OS. Splitting it off makes more logical sense. tendim 07-Nov-2006 (EST)
Keep Too much material to merge with the Vista article. Robovski 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - It has some citations, other major software releases have criticism pages as well. It does seem rather unwise to compile criticism for a product that hasn't even been released yet and might go against WP:NOT, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Jtalledo (talk)
Weak Delete Surely belongs under the umbrella of the Vista article, do standard articles have entries specifically for the pros and cons of events/object? No; this is because such comments logically fall under the remit of the main article, issues of article length can be dealt with using proper article structuring coupled with a good TOC. 89.100.150.17 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)— 89.100.150.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep - I'm kinda ambivalent about this; OTOH, WP isn't a crystal ball, but it has generated significant amounts of controversy. I'm leaning towards keep, but we need to keep it from becoming an attack page.Veinor (ヴエノル) 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warrens and above commenters, article was created in line with Wikipedia:Summary style development process. Yamaguchi先生 06:36, 9 November 2006
Keep as criticism is NPOV, sourced, and directly relevant to the product - some of it has already resulted in changes to Vista (e.g. licencing & UAC) which would be of historical interest to some. Peter Campbell 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter Campbell. Mikker ^(...) 20:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What wikipedia rule is being violated? It cites sources for the criticisms, and to the best of my reading ability it complies with the policy of "characterizing disputes rather than engag(ing) in them". I agree that MS responses are relevant in this article and to the degree possible they should be added. However this does not invalidate the article or the article subject - it just needs work. If you see something missing, add it. chochem 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian G. Walker[edit]

del. nonnotbale. Direcotr here, director there. No notable achievements. Mukadderat 17:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is doubtful, and references provided in the article appear to be books by the article's subject (hardly independeny sources). -- Whpq 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after the corrections on the references -- Whpq 14:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. May not be an absolute leader in his field, but the breadth of achievement is sound. Can't delete all OBEs and MBEs. Amy Crescenzo 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amy Crescenzo. Kavadi carrier 08:14, 4 November 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, KrakatoaKatie 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. The Google test for ian.g.walker -wikipedia site:uk yields one primary source result. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO per Dhartung. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Change to keep after proper sources found. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "He won his OBE in the Queen's Honours list for his work with the disadvantaged children of South Yorkshire." sounds like a pretty good claim for notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also a published author (see list of publications in the article). I couldn't find reviews for his books, but some might be found using different search databases. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the papers attributed to the subject was done so in error. I have removed the paper from the Publications section. Please see the Discussion page for more details. Caknuck 09:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TruthbringerToronto, notable/published. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For crying out loud, he's an OBE? Any failure to meet WP:BIO must stem from lack of research rather than lack of sources. While I hope someone helps finding sources, in the meantime this is an obvious keep. JoshuaZ 06:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't know how freely they give out OBE's and MBE's, but I don't need to reach that question because he's notable without those honors. JamesMLane t c 10:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Harr o5 08:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd's Cruises and Tours[edit]

Delete. Notability not asserted Anlace 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom - not notable. Big top 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep to preempt a repeat of the esoteric programming languages fiasco. Any editor may feel free to review the articles nominated here and split it into smaller nominations. Kavadi carrier 09:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations articles[edit]

all Delete or Merge with Main articles per Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Listcruft.--Militteyz 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lost awards--Militteyz 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lost awards was duplication, which is not the case with these. Also, none of these articles classify as link, image or media file repositories. Please come up with a more valid reason for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 03:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep until the nomination is broken up; some of these were legitimate splits from a main article, while others are so long that a merge of so much notable info would be ludicrous. I'm asking for a speedy keep because there's no reason to debate dozens of articles at once, especially when they vary greatly in content and quality. Additionally, and unrelated to calling for a "strong, speedy keep", the nominator has never made an edit before, and then decided to nominate 45 articles for deletion at once. I'm trying to assume good faith, but given the circumstances, it's a bit difficult. -- Kicking222 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, these articles are in no way link repositories, nor are they even remotely close to listcruft; listcruft would be listing all of the actors who have appeared in Michael Jackson videos, not a year-by-year breakdown of noteworthy awards he's won. -- Kicking222 03:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Kicking222. --Daniel Olsen 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all per Kicking222, and maybe re-list some articles separately on a case-by-case basis as some articles does seem listcrufty. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grunge music. --MCB 04:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of grunge bands[edit]

Redundant, as we have both a list in the grunge article and in a category for these bands. More importantly though, this list is quite inaccurate, listing alternative bands as grunge when they have been thrown out of the grunge article before. -- LGagnon 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to grunge music --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to grunge music. Categories are better used for the articles in that list. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Arbusto 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! List are helpful guides and Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,
Redirect per above. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sloppy article and unsourced information. Ronrcr 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a copyvio - User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High And Dry[edit]

Delete No utility for Wikipedia DCman 03:00, 5 November 2006

Delete. This film does not appear to meet the criteria to be a notable film per the proposed guidelines. --Metropolitan90 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio from http://dontknocktherock.com/filmschedule.html. Deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Glen 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghoul Catcher[edit]

Unsourced, zero Google hits for "The Ghoul Catcher", zero Google hits for "Ghoul Catcher"+1882. Can't find anything having to do with this for "Jonathan Iverson". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a hoax. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, might be a hoax. Perhaps it could be speedied under A7 since even the author says that the book is not notable.--Hús ö nd 05:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the hoax possibility is definitely there. The references are interesting. As far as I can tell, Harrison T. Meserole didn't write a book called Early American Literature and Culture--one was written about him. Meserole's four-volume survey was called American Literature; Tradition & Innovation. The second reference in the article is even more clearly a little off. Burt Barer wrote a book called The Saint: A Complete History in Print, Radio, Film and Television of Leslie Charteris' Robin Hood of Modern Crime, Simon Templar, 1928-1992. The article references Burt Barer's The Saint: A Complete History of Print, Radio, Film, and Television. Why leave off the rest of the title? The only thing that comes to mind without being able to look at the book is that a work on the character of Simon Templar probably doesn't mention Ghostbusters. Darkspots 06:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching British Library and Library of Congress shows nothing for 'Ghoul Catcher' or 'Jonathan Iverson'. And to think I fixed the title of this article. For shame! --Aim Here 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well crafted nonsense. The 'Ghostbusters' linkage is certainly in doubt (assuming the original work exists) since the film is based on what is claimed to be original material. I'm going to remove the claim and link from that article until this AFD is resolved. Kuru ^talk 16:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax, and otherwise unverified. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if nothing can be found to verify this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Besides sockpuppet issues, most of those in favor of keeping the article seem to misunderstand the article and/or what AfD is intended to determine. --MCB 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinDOS[edit]

Note to closing admin: I suspect sockpuppetry on this AfD. All the keep voters (and article author) edit certain obscure categories and do racist vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else thinks similarly Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nintendude SchmuckyTheCat 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; this term gets 1M google hits. Also, it seems to be a common term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendough (talk • contribs)

Keep for awareness of word coinage being mass-known. --Nintendough 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to contest a {{prod}}, just remove it, you don't need to escalate to AfD. Anyway, redirect to ~~Windows~~ Microsoft Windows; the content fails WP:NOR/WP:NEO due to lack of any sources. Linking to Google Search results is not a reliable source. The Google hits indicate that this word is used in all kinds of ways. Sandstein 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to ghits. (I see the word it for the first time, though). Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: if you redirect it, include the term "WinDOS" in whatever article it redirects to. --Nintendough 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and do not redirect nobody uses this term in the way the article describes. The top 60 google search results are for sets of scripting tools, emulators, other software packages, and (damnit), this article is mirrored already) that have nothing to do with a portmanteau of Windows and DOS. Also, this article was written by a new user whose other contributions were writing "NIGGER POOP" repeatedly in other articles. The only reason this wasn't speedy deleted is that the author wrote coherent sentences making it not patent nonsense, even though it is. SchmuckyTheCat 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WinDOS is part of GNU Pascal, and there was an MSDN Journal article([10]) in 1991 about the "WINDOS library", but it'd be a stretch to say that either of these merits its own article. I poked around and it seems that "Windos" appears most often as a misspelling of Windows, so there may be some merit in creating a misspelling redirection for "Windos", but not for "WinDOS". -/- Warren 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DOS programs are often run when using Windows. So, some people may have coined the term "WinDOS" to describe that. --YDK500 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then there would be reliable sources that say that. Which don't exist. Also, you seem to have the same editing pattern as Nintendough, who already voted. SchmuckyTheCat 15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a veteran DOS user; and I still play old DOS programs on Windows XP. So, This can be a keeper. --Clarenceville Trojan 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have a source that says it was ever used in the way the article describes? SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 1 November 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Windows or DOS --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. The word gets so many Google hits probably because there is a specific software utility/package/library/whatever with this name and because it is a common misspelling of "windows", not because it is used as the article describes. eaolson 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's primary assertion is factually inaccurate. Microsoft has always referred to their implementation of DOS as MS-DOS --RoninBK_ETC 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire content of this article is a) the incorrect claim that MS has ever systematically used this term, and b) a tedious explanation of its obvious source. Opabinia regalis 05:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Windows. In my experience (as an IT professional on NT servers) the term was not used by Microsoft or MS-certified people but as a casual shorthand by Unix and Mac people. It's little more than a dicdef, in that respect. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Microsoft Windows. Does not need its own article. JIP | Talk 09:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V. Delete as protologism, and do not redirect. -- The Anome 11:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism. Xdenizen 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has what to do with the total falseness of this article and Wikipedia verifiability policies? SchmuckyTheCat 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of others seem to want to keep it . . . so, why not improve it, rather than destroy others' work when obviously some people are interested in this article? Take care! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "The Cat"'s sockpuppetry allegation. Mostly the article is just too stubby to matter. It's probably just something to merge elsewhere. Anomo 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the whole article is based on a dubious claim. Note that the creator and one of the keep votes have been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm The vandalism started on the account YDK500 with an opposession with feces and I did find in there, "The Diarrhea Song" which I wondered since childhood the lyrics. Great article and I think it should be featured. Anyway YDK500 then did this "NIGGER POOP" crapflood vandalism. Then Nintendough did "NIGGER POOP" vandalism and got banned, too. I think they're both the same person.

Note: None of my contributions are anything like YDK500 or any of the other users who repeat racist words in articles. But, I still think we should keep since this term gets 100K+ hits on google. Also, Clarenceville Trojan is a relatively faithful editor too. --Nintendough 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictdef, not verified, questionable term. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with/to Microsoft Windows as it is an older and commonly used term for PC Computing not associated with Linux or other non-microsoft OS Robovski 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; DOS is a popular operating system for old games. --Livonia Mall 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; except this is a legitimate vote. Because this term is in rampant use by informal DOS and Windows users. --Nisa's Grand Am 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD process is not a vote. It is a debate. Robovski 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Glen 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Corey[edit]

Not notable. Let's wait until he makes it to the majors. Also, there was an Orioles pitcher by the same name in the early 80s, could cause confusion. -- dakern74 (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but don't salt). Agree. Keep at it, Mark. Hope to see you here next year. --Oakshade 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Keep with new info provided. --Oakshade 23:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as above; not quite notable enough just yet, but article can be recreated if he makes it to the majors. --Alan Au 07:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep following addition of references to major league play. --Alan Au 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has pitched in over 80 games in the major leagues. See: here. I remember when he used to pitch for the Pirates. Wickethewok 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BIO ("Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league..."). Caknuck 09:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has played in the major leagues, even if not there at the moment, which clearly meets WP:BIO standards. Eighty-one games is a lot more than Stubby Clapp ever played. -- Fan-1967 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not sure if I can withdraw my own nomination. This oughta be referred over to WP:WPBB so it can be expanded to include his major-league stats. I had no idea he had any. Whoever created the original "fan club" page for him should've mentioned it. -- dakern74 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even more notable than the average guy with 81 career games, since he had a seizure in the lobby of the Mets' team hotel and nearly died while on the active roster. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if you ever need to check whether a ballplayer has spent time in the majors, Baseball-Reference.com is a nice easy reference source. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 06:37, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was keep. Glen 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bros[edit]

Non-notable porn production company and/or website. No WP:V viareliable sources either. Valrith 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an article about a website that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bang Bros is one of the largest internet porn sites- Alexa rank of 672. I think we should hold off on the speedy. --Wafulz 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find reliable sources. It's a well known porn site, and a very high Alexa ranking. TJ Spyke 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, insofar as porn sites go, Bang Bros is pretty high up there. (Alexa rank 672 isn't too shabby, considering the dillions of porn sites in existence.) I suggest a merge of Bang Bus into Bang Bros, and an all-around cleanup of the Bang Bros article. ♠P M C♠ 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in non-porn media and party to an FTC action. Not sure if this is the best name, maybe rename as Bang Productions, Bang Bros Online, or Bang Bros Network, or Bangbros.com, Inc. (actual incorporated name of at least one company in the, um, pile). --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best-known production company in the Web-based gonzo porn genre. (And yes, that's a genre.) The article needs to be... uh, refined somewhat. Caknuck 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this porn studio is famous, I don't think it's very notable. JIP | Talk 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs cleanup, but the subject is very well-known, has a good Alexa rank, has been covered in an independent media and has won awards: Bangbros is critically acclaimed as innovators, winning the 2006 AVN Award for Best Amateur Series and for Best Amateur Release. (Amateur meaning “genre”) (from Dhartung's link). Prolog 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major production company of the genre. 23skidoo 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major production company of the genre. SchmuckyTheCat 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the biggest companies in the internet pornography market, as well as having extremely high Alexa ranks on their sites. In reference to Dhartung's comments, It seems as if their payments come from "BBrosMedia.com" and "OXideas, Inc" as companies. I assume the B in BBros stands for Bang Bros so I would say as a generalisation that this article has the correct name, unless they are known more commonly by a different name. Steve355 13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence L. Larmore[edit]

This page is apparently an autobiography. Additionally, two key linked articles, K-server problem and T-theory, were also created recently by the same user. These articles are only linked by Lawrence L. Larmore (except for a couple automatically-generated links), and should be considered included under this nomination. It seems that this is an instance of an individual writing about his specialized area of work, and making it seem more important than it actually is. I will invite comments from the Computer Science WikiProject. Eliyak T·C 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel too close to the subject of this AfD to have an unbiased opinion on it, and I don't know what T-theory is (perhaps I should), but the K-server problem is a central topic to online algorithms, is relevant to important practical problems such as cache replacement strategies, and was for several years quite a hot topic in theoretical computer science more generally. It deserves a much less stubby article than what's there now, and I think it is to Larry's credit if he was the one to notice and correct its absence here. I'll take a look at expanding that article into something more informative. —David Eppstein 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Last time I checked, T-Theory is a branch of mathematics. Shall we each individually propose deletion of every topic that we are unfamiliar with or do not understand? Ridiculous. Secondly, how "important" something "seems" is subjective. If you don't find these topics important, then avoid them. Deletion seems extreme. Lastly, a quick check in two of my CS textbooks (Data Structures ISBN: 032144146X, and Online Computation ISBN: 0521619467) reveals Larmore in the index. Enough said. --Tparameter

Delete "known for" - known by whom? The assertion is there, but not the evidence. Fails WP:BIO in my opinion QuiteUnusual

Comment The wording has been changed, as shown later on this page. We've also shown additional "evidence" of notability below. Oravec 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per David Eppstein. May be notable within their field of work. Kavadi carrier 09:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know much about his area of research, but I draw attention to the fact that we have articles about obscure fictional characters and rock bands, and here we debate the deletion of an article about a person who appears to have done some scientific research. I would prefer Wikipedia to cover non-notable scientists rather than obscure garage musicians. NerdyNSK 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the external links could use trimming. Seems referenced well enough; the related articles seem fleshed out enough to assuage worries about a single-user build-up attempt. Also a comment on the comment: that's a straw man; articles should be ideally be judged individually from each other. Not that I disagree with the thinking. humblefool ® 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One reason to do an AfD is to give proponents of the article a chance to make improvements, in a case where the article may have potential but falls short in its current state. A mere laundry list of algorithms he helped create won't be enlightening. A nice short, punchy exposition of one of the algorithms showing its value could make the difference. The article says nothing about practical importance of his work. If his work is only theoretical, and is not practically significant, could its mathematical value be illustrated? EdJohnston 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been improved and adjusted by recommendations. In addition, T-theory, tight span, package-merge algorithm, k-server problem, and other related topics have been expanded by several different contributors. Calbaer has also made references of practical importance of Larmore's work. Oravec 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previously the reason for deletion was no references. I updated the site and included requested references.

The current reason for deletion has two arguments.
1. The article is an autobiography
2. The material presented is not important.
Eliyak, you referenced this page as an autobiography. By definition, an autobiography is writen by the person who the article is about. Since I wrote this page, it is not an autobiography, it is a biography, which wikipedia allows as long as the person is of importance. Larmore's importance is clearly shown in the references I provided earlier this week.
Next, we address the importance of the K-server problem and T-theory. If you google: "t-theory" "mathematics" you'll get 10,000+ pages of relivent information. If you google: "k-server problem" you'll get 14,000+ pages of relivent information. Clearly these topics have value. In addition, after I created stubs for each of the topics, others have been adding/modifying the information. Clearly there are others who care about these subjects.
EdJohnston, thank you for your comments. You mentioned that AfD gives a chance for improving the article. Adding algorithm details should be a wikipedia topic on its own, not covered in the biography of person. Deleting the topic is a bit much. If improvments are needed, you could help improve it (since that is the beauty of wikipedia). Additionally, I'll add some additional information about some of Larmore's algorithms later this week. Hopefully, this will satisfy your request.
Oravec 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your list of "references" is actually (with the possible exception of the Borodin and El-Yaniv reference, which I don't have access to and can't check) a list of Larmore's publications. These references do not directly support the assertion that Larmore is "known for" his work. Nor do they provide any indication that his work in these (I am willing to stipulate) important areas is itself important or notable. I suppose you could infer importance or notability from the prestige of the journals in which the publications in question appear, but that smacks of original research. More helpful references might be things like a survey article on the field in question (one n ot authored by Larmore) that points to Larmore's work as influential, and a biographical article or webpage that provides verifiability for the different degrees that are claimed. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan McInnes - I suppose you could infer importance or notability from the prestige of the journals in which the publications in question appear, but that smacks of original research.

If you could please clarify this statement I would appreciate it. The journals listed are notable sources. By the link you provided, this satisfies being non-original research because the papers published come from notable sources. Perhaps the following link will also help with the notability issue. From the Most cited authors in Computer Science - June 2003 (CiteSeer), Larmore is 6641 out of 659481 authors, clearly he is a little better than the average professor (from this measurement he is roughly in the top 1%). Oravec 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we're not concerned with whether or not Larmore's work is original research. What we're concerned with is whether or not the claims about Larmore's work are original research. Making the assertion that Larmore's work is important because it has been published in notable journals can be construed as original research, since you are coming to a conclusion based on the analysis of data, rather than citing someone else's analysis or conclusions. The same goes for analyzing Citeseer data (which isn't all that unbiased to begin with, but that's a separate issue). That's why I encouraged you to dig up a survey article that states that Larmore's work is influential or important - that conclusion would be citable, and not OR. The alternative is to avoid claiming that Larmore's work is important, and to simply state that his work has been published in journals X, Y, and Z (supportable via citations of the articles themselves), and that he is the 6641st most cited author on Citeseer (supportable via reference to the Citeseer page). In neither case would you be inserting your own opinions or analysis. You would simply be presenting verifiable facts, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example paper for the field I'm most familiar with, Huffman coding, is [11], a survey of code and parse trees. (A free version can be found at [12].) It includes, "Currently the best algorithmic approach to Huffman coding under the maximum codeword length constraint is due to Moffat et al. based on the algorithm of Larmore and Hirschberg." So the best practical approach is a modification of one co-introduced by Larmore. Huffman coding under the maximum codeword length constraint is useful for the fastest method of near-optimal lossless coding for known sources. It's hard to say how much that is used in practice, but it doesn't seem too pedestrian to me.... Calbaer 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan McInnes - Thank you for clarifying your statement for me. I must agree, althrough I think it is common knowledge that he is well-known (in his research areas and then some), there is no real way to measure something unbiasedly (even though citeseer is a 3rd party and you asked for a reference). So I reworded the page to: One of his main research areas is competitive analysis of online algorithms, particularly for the k-server problem. This addresses his research efforts and allows for everyone to maintain their own opinion. Please let me know if all is satisfactory. Thanks, Oravec 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better to me now. Thank you for your efforts in getting it cleaned up. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the Wikipedia WP:Bio, criteria for biography: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." This is satisfied by the aforementioned fundamental algorithms and references in widely used textbooks in CS. Secondly, under "alternative tests" on the same page, "The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor..., they can and should be included." Since Larmore has two PhDs, and an abundance of publications in mathematics as well as CS, and he is referenced in Textbooks - I think it is safe to say that he is more well-known than an "average college prof". He is after all above average in these three areas, which are definitive for professors. Tparameter 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might consider adding the "aforementioned fundamental algorithms and references in widely used textbooks in CS" as references in the article. I was commenting on the content of the article, not the deletion dispute. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allan McInnes - I've updated the references on the page as per your request. You also requested references of his degrees. I added the reference of World Directory of Mathematicians for you (which took me a little bit of time). In addition, here is a link to CS faculty and list of their degrees at UNLV. I am pretty sure UNLV does a background check when hiring professors. If you still have doubts, then I invite you to contact the registrars at UCI and Northwestern. Oravec 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies the professor test, as noted by Tparameter. Calbaer 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other "keep" responses. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I see that Allan McInnes is also now voting to keep, I want to add my partial disagreement with his interpretation of WP:NOR. An article itself should not include original research. In making Wikipedia administrative decisions, however, we sometimes do original research, as when AfD participants run Google searches and report the results. JamesMLane t c 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core des at 07:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Barthanulus Quartrone Jr.[edit]

Complete nonsense. Original fiction, vandalism. Justinmeister 06:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. So tagged. MER-C 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same criteria as MER-C - speedy delete. Big top 06:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an attack page. TJ Spyke 07:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both Tizio 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalee Grable and Hologram Theory[edit]

Also nominating her theory, Hologram Theory, as 9/11 conspiracy cruft. This person does not seem to be notable - for a conspiracy theorist she does rather poorly with 2270 hits on Google, most of which are to conspiracy sites and blogs, no independent coverage. Opabinia regalis 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Hologram Theory article has more content now. Feel free to change your nominations from Delete to Keep, Strong Keep, or Speedy Keep. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article does not meet speedy keep requirements.--Rosicrucian 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. Conspiracy Cruft. NauticaShad e s 09:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portillo (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tom. Tbeatty 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think you can combine the two AfD's on one page like this. It's not just 'her' theory. There are scores of researchers who subscribe to the Hologram Theory. Please see this page, for instance. Hologram Theory She had nothing to do with this page. This 'dual nomination page' is highly improper! It's the equivalent to nominating 'Isaac Newton' AND 'Gravity' for AfD on the same page. I think it important to note that I don't believe in this theory - not one bit - but I don't believe in the 'conspiracy theory' of Santa Claus either - and Santa has an article on Wiki. - F.A.A.F.A 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Santa Claus is a mass hallucination of millions upon millions of children worldwide. This is a non-notable theory within a small field filled with paranoids. Don't try and compare the two. Delete both. humblefool ® 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"mass hallucination" ?! Who's paranoid? - F.A.A.F.A. 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Ms. Grable's notability: "Rosalee Grable, one of the best researchers on the Sept 11 Videos has done a number of frame-by-frame analyses of the WTC2 plane footage, with video image enhancement to highlight the details." See - F.A.A.F.A 01:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is to 911review.org, an advocacy site which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. MCB 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On The Theory : "Phil Jayhan prominently features this evidence (Hologram Theory) on his website, and it has generated a huge amount of interest, often from within the government according to his site's logs. Phil did a lot of cold-calling to offices of congresscritters and senators to publicize these results, and was often met with honest surprise and interest by the staffers." See - F.A.A.F.A 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is to 911review.org, an advocacy site which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. MCB 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not really a serious article. Yet more apparent trolling by resident trouble-maker User:NBGPWS aka F.A.A.F.A aka Fairness And Accuracy For All. Morton Devonshire^Yo 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both are sourced exactly the same, and both completely lack reliable sources outside of conspiracy sites. Because a theory or researcher is notable amongst conspiracy theorists does not make it notable to the world at large. Beyond that, nominating related articles, even whole families of them, is established practice.--Rosicrucian 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - doesn't seem notable, besides when Alex Jones thinks a conspiracy theory is full of crap you really have to wonder how serious it is GabrielF 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Lacks reliable sources and thus verifiability. --MCB 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any mainstream references to her in database of 4000 publications. Edison 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Tbeatty took it upon himself to move some of the discussion to the Talk Page - F.A.A.F.A. 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Brimba 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable, quite off the chart as a matter of fact, and the only sources to state notability are not passing under WP:RS. The theory is just out there as well, I mean stop already, not everyone that has a new idea needs to get an article. We have articles on the prevelant, tested, notable ones, like controlled demolition, but whats next John Smith says aliens did it ... ? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nomination. - Crockspot 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~Grable into H-Theory, then merge that into a suitable 9/11 conspiracy theory article. In this way two fact-light articles are removed, but an audit trail is left for future researchers wanting to look up either. -- Simon Cursitor 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable. Just another in a series of garbage articles meant to disrupt Wikipedia (imo). Jinxmchue 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious allegation. Do you have any evidence to back this up ? -- Simon Cursitor 08:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA has a lengthy record of disruptive behavior under his current and former (i.e. NBGPWS) usernames. Putting a pig in a dress doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig. Jinxmchue 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which, with respect, violates assume good faith. By your argument, once someone has made an edit with which the cabal disagree, every edit they make thereafter is assumed to be vandalic. As stated above, I agree the articles need concatenation, but not that they are "intended to disrupt" (your words, not mine) -- Simon Cursitor 08:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One edit, no. A series of edits, yes. Also, his comments elsewhere reveal his true intentions regarding WP. I would love nothing more than to assume good faith in regards to FAAFA, but the evidence I have now cannot allow me to do that. I am certainly open to changing my mind and will do so if I see evidence to support that decision. Jinxmchue 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nominated. Wow, and I thought David Copperfield was good with his magic tricks. And now, for my next trick, watch this cruft disappear… JungleCat talk/contrib 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Against deleteinstead: allowing Rosalee Grable to update her entry, since this is an outdated entry based on 2003/04 research, see also http://www.911tvfakery.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ewing2001 (talk • contribs) . — ewing2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge or Against Delete there is no reason this shouldn't be a subject for study. Grable has compared thousands of clips and has a large on-line archive. The fact that only "conspiracy" sites know about her makes sense considering her subject matter. If others knew of her, it wouldn't be disputed nor in that category. Wikipedia itself has been accused of being a conspiracy site. So the label itself does not mean something is unworthy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megshead (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC). — Megshead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete both as nominated. Not only is this non-notable and I've never even heard of this outside of wiki. Just a comment - Holograms? Wow..thats pretty out there. Dman727 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Strothra 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Kavadi carrier 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter green[edit]

~~Prod disputed, so sending to AfD. Dicdef which is already present in Wiktionary, no need for transwiki. Not enough can be added to make an article. Recommend deletion.~~ Looks like it can be made workable, please withdraw nomination. Seraphimblade 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this and not Gray-asparagus or Celadon (color)? Article is informative and well-cited. Caknuck 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body-type preferences among White and Black people[edit]

The article contains original research, and much of it can be of offensive nature to the person reading. Many sentences start with 'Blacks' or 'whites', and on the talk page, some people find this article outrageous and unencyclopedic. Also, article does not make much sense, a lot of it seems to be POV, and it doesn't have sources for many of the statements. At least a major re-write is in order, if not a deletion. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: first AfD discussion. --- RockMFR 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR. Cited works do not appear to support the material in the article - lack of inline citations makes it very difficult to check, of course. QuiteUnusual 09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Kavadi carrier 09:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. -- The Anome 11:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gag me with an OR. --Ling.Nut 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a trend of people wanting to delete "race-based" articles out of a seeming reluctance to talk about race at all (which is also bad, since Wikipedia is not censored), I'm also going to take a look at some of the sources cited, which happens far too rarely here. The online link provided has nothing talking about body type preferences, it's just a general overview of there seemingly being a race-based "hierarchy" in interracial relationships, one for women and one for men. The Qualitative Report article is more in line with the title of this one, but it only notes body-image problems for women. The BioSci article does not strictly involve "white" women (it involves Arab women, but that is not the whole of "white"). The sex roles journal article is decent in this regard, but I don't think that the article contents are a good summary of the article. Now. I think that this is a poor article, and has way too many weasel words (see how many times the word "researchers" is used in the article), but the Sex roles article notes that most of the studies on attractiveness tend to place the "Anglo American" (their words) viewpoint as the default one and that race and culture do modify these characteristics. So. My opinion is to delete this article, take the references and integrate them into a body type preferences article of some sort (I'm guessing one is already here.) ColourBurst 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'm surprised it didn't get deleted the first time. RobJ1981 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR essay. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Contains original research. Additionally it seems to lack any intellectual or academic merit whatsoever. Xdenizen 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an article which makes controvrsial claims, having a list of uncited references at the end is unacceptable. Use inline cites to footnote claims to pages of the references. I, along with Sir Mixalot in "Baby Got Back," expect that there are some kind of race-based differences in body shape preferences for mates. But the article smacks of OR due to the lack of specific references. If the editors who put in claims know where they found them, then cite the references at the point in the text where they are made. This reads like a poorly written research paper from a freshman college course in sociology.Edison 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like big butts and I cannot lie. SchmuckyTheCat 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there another reason you can put about keeping the article? CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 04:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see all delete votes state this is Original Research. None of them refute that this, among other cited references, doesn't back up the article: Linda A. Jackson and Olivia D. McGill. "Body type preferences and body characteristics associated with attractive and unattractive bodies by African Americans and Anglo Americans." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Sep. 1996, 35(5/6):295-307. SchmuckyTheCat 05:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have recently been doing research on the subject and I find that most of the material in this article is in fact refrenceable. Alot of the information coincides with the information mentioned in the books. However, one major chance needs to be made, that is to rename the article to "Body Image between Cultures" and to diversify to apply to various cultures. I would be willing to work on the article, but it would have to wait at least six weeks simply due to the sheer work load I am facing at the moment. Do not delete the article, wait for revision. I have seen significantly worse articles than this that did not get nearly as much attention. I believe that this is mainly due to the race issue. That is why I suggest renaming the article and broadening the content to apply to other cultures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.176.238 (talk • contribs) (moved from top of page - please make new comments at the bottom and sign with ~~~~. Thanks! Kavadi carrier 02:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who left Islam[edit]

Unmaintainable lists of questionable encyclopedic value as lists. Would be better served as categories; fortunately, those categories already exist, making the lists redundant. Shimeru 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following:

Shimeru 08:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And:

Shimeru 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Note: 13 votes made before these four were added to the Afd Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator. --Nlu (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories work just fine. Kavadi carrier 09:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories suffice here. utcursch | talk 10:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Szvest 14:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT TheRanger 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not replace lists with categories; see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. (For example, lists can include redlinks while categories cannot. List entries can be annotated with, for example, the date and reason of conversion, whereas category entries cannot. Lists can be watchlisted to track additions and deletions, but categories cannot.) Note also that while some people may consider the lists for Islam and Christianity to be unmaintainable, the ones for Judaism and Hinduism certainly aren't. Those are not proselytizing religions, and as such the number of converts is, and will remain, very small. —Psychonaut 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. It was rather unwise to nominate these pages for Deletion. Lists are another way of categorizing people. The link given above by Psychonaut WP:CLS gives the advantages of keeping lists. Here you can categorize into different sections, tabulate information, provide pictures (like in List of converts to Christianity) and add additional features which you CANNOT do in Categories.

If this policy is acted upon, I will request the deletion of other lists as well such as List of Muslims, and its many Sub Lists which are linked on that page. If somehow List of Muslims page is also not deleted, I'll take this matter up to Arb Com. All policies must be applied equally. Also note the existence of List of people by belief. Either nominate ALL of these lists for Deletion (for consistency), or leave them alone. It is therefore ridiculous in my opinion to suggest the deletion of List of people who left Islam.--Matt57 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though not voting for deletion before reading the above, I must agree with Matt57's persuasive and compelling argument that these other lists should also be deleted, on the same grounds Shimeru gives above. Thus my vote below, and likewise (when nominated) there. -- SAJordan 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Perfectly valid lists and there is such a thing as perfectly valid lists. Would you delete List of HIV-positive people because there is Category:HIV-positive people? Several of these lists have years of work put into them and contain annotation or notable red-linked names.--T. Anthony 15:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting the "lists by former religion." These are likely to be more contentious as it implies rejection of something. If this is what is wanted though those should've been nominated. Those lists are List of ex-atheists, List of ex-Protestants, Former Latter-day Saints, and List of ex-Roman Catholics.--T. Anthony 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration I have an alternate proposal. Keep the lists, but we should delete the categories. The lists are dealing with a subject that may require some explanation, but categories can be added without expanation and affect the article. Putting Category:Former Muslims, or anyone, can cause unnecessary problems to people that merely being on a list may not. This is because lists, ideally, require sources.--T. Anthony 16:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: the Categories provide an easy way for all the different articles to be linked together. When a person clicks on a category, they can either see others in the same category, or seek more information on the separate Lists page, which will be/should be linked on the Category pages. These are all different ways of displaying information. If a person doesnt belong in a category, they can always debate that and I have observed they have.--Matt57 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point. Plus we're not voting on categories here so I basically stick with keeping all.--T. Anthony 01:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thanks for bringing those to my attention; I've added them to the nomination. Shimeru 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not what I had in mind. I was thinking more switch it to just be apostasy lists as those are more clearly contentious. Still if you're just going to keep adding things to this Afd I should mention that you missed List of Catholic converts.--T. Anthony 08:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think categories are necessarily the best way to keep this information, but I think these articles have another problem other than the category vs. list maintenanbility issue: they're inherently POV and difficult to verify. With that being the case, eventually, if the lists are deleted, perhaps the category should go next. --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so you're suggesting the Deletion of all categories and lists on Wikipedia which could inherently be POV. People come on Wikipedia and debate their POV and they frequently arrive at conclusions which are based on facts and so we arrive at a NPOV. As far as "List Maintenanbility" is concerned, that is true for ANY page, not just lists. ALL pages have to be maintained. Thats the responsibility of the editors. Thats what we are HERE for.--Matt57 16:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All : very interesting and valid points raised by User:Psychonaut. --- ابراهيم 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep for all the reasons above. The lists are not inherently POV and unverifiable because people can only be added to them if they are referenced. If there is no proof, then they should not be added. Simple as. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the entries on these lists are in fact not cited. Only List of converts to Christianity appears thoroughly sourced, and even there it appears that half the list or more is not. Shimeru 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost all or all of the names in the List of converts to Judaism mentioned conversion to Judaism in their articles. I took out only two or three because I couldn't find a reference for the article's claim they converted. Virtually all names in the list are now cited except for BC figures known by one name, looking them up is hard, and a porn star that I didn't want to Google.--T. Anthony 10:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - While they may not be cited, their articles should mention it. And if they don't they don't they should be googled. A lack of references does not in practice does not mean the lists should be deleted. Personally, I have been through every single one of those lists in the past few months to see who is on them, and have learnt many new thinsg taht i would not have learnt had I merely had categories to refer to. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep these lists are very interesting to people who see them, because they dont just tell the name, but other info about the person, which makes a person easier to find. In categories its just dull. Bazel 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all: All of these articles include notable people who already have articles on Wikipedia. They function as a good research tool. For example, let's say someone is trying to research people who had converted from Judaism to Christanity, or vice-versa. List of converts to Christianity and List of converts to Judaism would provide a great resource. The prospective researcher easily could find subjects to examine further. The other lists work the same way. These lists are wholly viewpoint neutral, and they provide a valuable research resource. Also, replacing them with categories is not a good idea, because categories cannot be placed on a watchlist, but these lists can. The lists are very well-developed and fit Wikipedia's purposes very well. Please keep them. 65.28.2.218 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Bazel 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all per nominator and Matt57's argument above. -- SAJordan 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the direction indicated by Wikipedia:User categorization: "In the past (and partially for now until the new system is entirely in place) user categorisation has been accomplished through hundreds of unsorted lists that are growing very large in some cases and are almost entirely unmanageable. The English Wikipedia is one of the few still using this defunct system. It has been proposed (and is currently being implemented) that these lists be replaced by a system of organised categories." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 20:20, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Comment: User Bazel above has voted both for Keep and Delete. I have notified him of that. Here's the interesting thing in this vote: Some people like seeing List of converts to Islam, however they have a major obvious problem with List of people who left Islam. Remember people, your vote will also apply to List of converts to Islam so be careful about what you ask for.--Matt57 20:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Its stupid to nominate so many pages at once. Its actually stupid. For Judaism and Hinduism, it would be easy to maintain, and a keep vote should be placed on Islam and Christianity for fairness as well. I dont know about ex-protestants, because prots are merely a sect.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. These are all lists of people who went from one religion (or none at all) to another (or none at all), so they're all related. Shimeru 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also find it interesting that you stated on my talk page that you "would have voted delete had [I] not been so adventurous (or crossed into the Hinduism line)." I see no reason to show such partiality to any one specific religion; it seems to me that either these lists all belong, or they all don't. Why do you feel Hinduism does not fit in with the others? Shimeru 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Reply - But the point is to a religion. List of people who left Islam is a left list not a to list. Also verifiability, should be in the article, it doesnt have to be in the actual list. For example George Harrison 's article cites he converted to Hinduism. Its redundant to cite the same link in the list. Just because it has to be policed doesnt mean it can fall victim to a deletionist crusade. The Hinduism comment was showing why I'm fighting for a strong keep, because it affects me more personally when my religionis up for deletion. I would have voted delete had the afd been only for List of people who left Islam.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it does, and I suspect that that, rather than the merits of the articles, is what will drive many of the keep votes. Nevertheless. I still don't see a difference between 'from' and 'to'... if George Harrison converts to Hinduism, is he not also converting from a previous belief? Shimeru 21:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Good point. If you read any of the lists you AFD'd you might see that each of those lists has a section "Fom ISlam", "From Buddhism", "From Christianity", "From Hinduism". The actual List of people who left Islam is therefore unneeded (and merits delete) but dragging the to lists into the same AFD nom messed up your case.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chopper Dave 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder why only lists for Conversion/Apostasy are being targeted. Are they any less important than a list like List of Muslims? Any answer to that, Shimeru? --Matt57 20:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because lists of converts/apostates are all related to each other. Lists of people by religion would not be suitable for inclusion in the same AfD in my opinion. Do not take my exclusion of those lists from this AfD as a statement that I feel those lists are or are not important; they simply are not relevant to this AfD as I see it. Shimeru 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They ARE relevant. One is a list of "converting to", the other is "who are". Both are lists of people with a certain belief. Therefore if any reason of deletion applies to List of people who left Islam, it also applies to List of Muslims. --Matt57 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and comment: Look at the list of Muslims. It links to a bunch of subcategories. But then look at one of the lists being considered for deletion, such as List of people who left Islam. It's just a list of names. I support List of Muslims, List of Christians, etc. but not the ones put up for deletion. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who left Islam is a new article. It has not been yet refined and categorized. The page was just created last night. Give it some time. The fact that a page is short or doesnt have sub-lists, is no criteria for Deletion. Are you also supporting deletion of List of converts to Islam? --Matt57 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (the article nominated, not the other "convert" lists). Per nom, and also because of duplication ... this article sort of duplicates the info in the other "converts to" lists. --Ragib 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no duplication of information. If we have a list of List of converts to Islam, we can definitely have a list List of people who left Islam. These lists convery separate information anyway. This is why your vote will count for all such lists, including List of converts to Islam.--Matt57 20:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have helped with List of ex-Roman Catholics and it does not have a corresponding category. Carolynparrishfan 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a Category:Former Roman Catholics, just in case, much to my own surprise.--T. Anthony 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - serves no purpose. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, for reasons noted above. However, entries on these lists should be held to the same standards of verifiability and WP:BLP as any other article. -Porlob 22:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all We have categories for a reason; they work perfectly fine here. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I say, at least one of the proposed does not have a corresponding category. Carolynparrishfan

Tariq, Categories serve their own purposes and so do lists. You can have additional information in lists that you cannot have in Categories. "Do not replace lists with categories; see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes"--Matt57 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the purpose of lists, but I still believe categories would work fine here. -- tariqabjotu 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --BhaiSaab ^talk 23:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the list is sort of interesting. No reason to delete. Elizmr 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an attempt to create a new de facto policy through afd. If a new policy on redundant lists and categories is desired then the relevant guidelines should be followed. The current guideline says that lists and categories on the same topic are allowed. Also the size of the nomination and the addition of new articles to the nomination after votes have be made undermines the afd process. Seano1 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- not everything is a category. These lists are very useful in writing about similar people. --Jayrav 00:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and comment Mass nominations of even remotely controversial subjects don't work out for anyone. Afd is not the place to argue the value of lists versus categories as policy and mass-nominating lists relating to all the world's major religions, to me, is dangerously close to violating WP:POINT. Furthermore, adding additional articles to the nom after other editors had voted is seriously out of order. I suggest this Afd by closed as "trainwreck -- no consensus" and mass nominations of this sort be discouraged in the future. Dina 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per Seano1 Doctor Bruno 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of people-related deletions. —Psychonaut 01:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep all per Seano, Jayrav. There should be detailed discussion about what each one of these should have and whether they would work better as lists or categories but this deletion is not a useful way to discuss that. JoshuaZ 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Due to overreaching zeal in nominating too many different articles at once. This is an abuse of the AFD procedure. Edison 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AllI sense an abuse of the AfD procesure to push a certain POV.Hkelkar 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These cannot be appropriately considered all at once here. Sandstein 06:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now, because User:Shimeru is being disingenuous by half to select such a wide range of diverse articles (aka "Lists") for deletion. What is possibly wrong with the List of converts to Islam; List of converts to Christianity; List of converts to Judaism; List of converts to Hinduism???? It is a fact that there have been notable conversions to religions by very notable people and vice versa. For example, in the history of Judaism, the case of Sabbatai Zevi the false "Messiah" who left Judaism and became an apostate to Islam shook the Jewish world. Or the case of Paul of Tarsus who left Judaism to become one of Christianity's main architects. The lists are very long. Indeed, the dual notions of Apostasy (abandoning one's faith) and of Religious conversion are central to the world's major religions, which is something that User:Shimeru fails to grasp and through his rash act of nominating so many articles that revolve around such critical and crucual religious ideas smaks of an anti-religious POV in toto. IZAK 07:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak and others. Also agree that this is an inappropriate way of AfDeing. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak and others.--D-Boy 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we have to wait a few more days to close this? Can someone please close this right now? The consensus is obviously going to be Keep. --Matt57 13:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could still get "no concensus", but that also keeps it. I think the guy/gal was overly ambitious and killed his/her chances. It's possible if s/he had only nominated the former Muslim list s/he would've done better. (Although still may have lost)--T. Anthony 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. – Kaihsu 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. In my book, any article that starts with "List of..." needs to be comprehensive to be worthwhile, and these can never be. - fchd 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are some Wikipedia:Featured lists you need to put on AfD. These are List of HIV-positive people, List of people with epilepsy, List of notable brain tumor patients, and maybe Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc.--T. Anthony 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute this. List of converts to Christianity includes practically every person on Wikipedia whose biography says that they are a convert to Christianity, and then some. 66.142.52.162 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ~ ONUnicorn (Talk /

Strong Keep all - List of converts to Judaism, List of converts to Christianity, List of converts to Islam, and List of converts to Hinduism provide an invaluable research resource, the only one of their kind on the whole internet. Please keep them. 66.142.52.162 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribs) 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Strong Keep Arrow740 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per most Keep arguments Mad Jack 01:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above --Nielswik_(talk) 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Psychonaut. I also disagree that having a category negates the usefulness or keepability of a corresponding list, for (1) sourcing, (2) extra information, and (3) redlink reasons. Carlossuarez46 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Psychonaut Shyamsunder 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd just like to mention the related article List of Black Jews for people to consider. As you can imagine, it is a frequent target of vandalism, and perhaps a renaming or deletion is in order. --Eliyak T·C 04:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have requested the page be semi-protected at the advice of Matt57. --Eliyak T·C 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a) we have lots of categories and lists on the same topic; if that is your beef, start somewhere else; b) if we are going to have lists and categories of people by their religious affiliation, notable apostates and converts should be last on our list, so to speak. --Leifern 11:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all - List of converts to Judaism, List of converts to Christianity, List of converts to Islam, and List of converts to Hinduism provide an invaluable research resource, the only one of their kind on the whole internet. and there are references provided which ensure that no noe is taking sides. Please keep them.--Lord Anubis 13:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent research tool and verifiable list. JASpencer 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Also for other people left from any other religions. They are not encyclopaedic materials. Should we also need list people who left some political parties? from a citizenship? I can't believe this article exists here. — Indon (reply) — 15:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the afd is not only about List of people who left Islam its also about the List of converts to Islam/Hinduism/Judaism/etc.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stated delete all of the nominations. They are unencylopaedic. — Indon (reply) — 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Despite promises, reliable sources never appeared. If they do exist let me know and I will undelete. W.marsh 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem[edit]

Web forum that doesn't seem to meet WP:V or WP:WEB. I asked for some sources on the talk page and they didn't seem to know of any. Delete as failing WP:V and/or WP:WEB. Wickethewok 08:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it looks like by far the most active web forum I've seen. JIP | Talk 09:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are cited to assert notability per WP:WEB or WP:CORP (it is technically a company). Kavadi carrier 10:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but weak. Sounds like a version of Something Awful. If they've done something amazingly different with their membership, then there might be an argument. humblefool ® 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Already came up for deletion, back in the stone age, as "Genmay" (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Genmay). Appears to have never been closed, though. Curious... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No reliable sources at the moment means no notability. We've deleted forum articles with similar (or higher) activity. Though, this is a pretty large forum compared to many that currently (and unfortunately) have articles. --- RockMFR 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the largest forums existing --Macarion 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons Macarion stated above. It needs work, not deletion. Comment: "Sounds like a version of Something Awful" -- good thing Something Awful isn't some archetype or prototype or litmus test for relevance, otherwise your comment might have some merit. Something Awful could equally be said to be a "version of" Old Man Murray or Stile Project. Should we delete the Something Awful article too then? Professor Ninja 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I don't think thats the most important issue here. What about sources? Meeting WP:V is not optional. Wickethewok 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the most important issue, but it's been brought up as an issue nonetheless. I know you're delete-crazy Wicket, but removing an entire article and giving the people who will fulfill WP:V absolutely nothing to work with is totally counter-productive. The size of Genmay is easily verifiable through big boards. The rest of the material of the article is the structure of the forums and the administration of them -- do you honestly expect such a ridiculous litmus test to be applied that forum subgroups and her administrators be published in a known periodical simply to satisfy all aspects of WP:V? Verifiability is important, but there are limits to it. These are sane, common sense limits. We don't troll every article and question whether paraphrases used the definite or indefinite article, because its nonsense, because things as fluid and vague as that are verifiable in so far as you can check up on them yourself, but pegging down the exactness of it is nigh impossible. Should we exclude who admins the forums because Time magazine has never mentioned them? Professor Ninja 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you tone down some of your wordings. "delete-crazy" and "troll" can be seen as inflammatory and an assumption of bad faith. Wickethewok 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So could deliberately "misunderstanding" the use of the word troll to make it go from the very obvious in-context meaning of trolling in the sense of dragging a net vs. the "how could you possibly think it means that in the context given" meaning of deliberately attempting to incite a flame war. Now since I have demonstrable example of bad faith from you, perhaps you could explain how "delete-crazy" is bad faith? I'm sure any RfC would want to know. Professor Ninja 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize. In any case, I suggest that we stick to the subject at hand (General Mayhem). Whatever problems you have with me can be discussed elsewhere, such as my talk page. Wickethewok 08:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll cite some sources right now. --Indolences 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North View Primary School[edit]

Non notable primary school. Contested prod. Requested explanation from main editor on notability, none provided when prod removed QuiteUnusual 09:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yet another directory-style listing. Kavadi carrier 10:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete per nomination though I notice the article has been much expanded. This looks like another school that's notable within Singapore only. Kavadi carrier 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I felt that if schools like Northland Primary had articles, Northview primary deserved an article as well. Skyline supra 11:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The existance of other non-notable school articles is no grounds for keeping this one. Please read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Kavadi carrier 11:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I will comment no further. -- Kicking222 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But willing to change my opinion if any of the mentioned alumni can be shown to meet WP:BIO. Google searching for them was less than helpful, I found some possible references to Tan Gim Hwa but that was it. (I was using the English spellings, so if someone has some idea what would be reasonable other language searches they should probably do it). For now, the only claim to notability is non-notable alumni. There may also be WP:V concerns in terms of sourcing the article. JoshuaZ 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable school. Montco 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally, I'm not even sure what the grade level of this school is, that's how bare-bones a directory-type article it is. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep BAD FAITH NOMINATION, only created a few days ago! Please allow for organic expansion of the article. I'm sure verification is possible, but as you know, Rome wasn't built in a day. -- Librarianofages 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no need to call it bad faith. Please WP:AGF. And whether or not Rome was built in a day isn't very relevant if a school is fundamentally not-notable. Also, while we're at it "organic expansion" is nothing more than a buzzword. Please try to make an actual keep argument. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I agree it isn't proper to assume bad faith, I think it's also disingenuous and improper to discount someone else's reasoning out of hand like that. Organic expansion is a perfectly legitimate description of what happens to Wiki articles as they are noticed by users with knowledge of the topic over time. We don't have to have this Wikipedia project wrapped up and finished before finals, you know. Unfocused 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I ask then what the word "organic" adds to the phrases "organic growth" or "organic expansion"? A good sign of something being a buzzphrase is the presence of irrelevant qualifiers. Furthermore, I question the assertion that this an article that even would see any signigicant expansion if we gave it time. Both Kappa and I attempted to expand it and it is still a small stub. This won't be any larger than a stub. JoshuaZ 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps reading this article will help you understand the analogy. If not, I'll be happy to explain further. Un focused 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ENC. —Encephalon 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Schools are important and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as wikipedia is not a directory and that is what this looks to be TheRanger 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am agreeing with User:Libraianofages. The article was created on Nov. 4. A day later it's AFD'd. IMHO, you've got to give at least a week before trying to delete something like this (ie, something non-speediable). Or were we feeling bitty today? Although, if this were a week later, my vote would be to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We could always see if User:Skyline supra continues to refine the article within the remaining four days of this nomination. meta:Eventualism does have limitations. Kavadi carrier 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A school is no more notable than any other building within a community. Frankly, most should qualify under speedy a-7. Unless the school can assert some notability from the creation of the article, it should be deleted. Resolute 04:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless notability explained. utcursch | talk 13:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This school is listed in List_of_schools_in_Singapore, a huge and unwieldy article, which would not be an appropriate place to put the additional detail contained here. I expect this article will grow as have many of the others listed there. The achievements shown are notable, and I expect documented notable alumni will be added. I know of no reason why Wikipedia cannot be inclusive of "Encyclopedia of Education", of which Singapore has surprisingly good coverage so far, in my opinion. Un focused 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated within the article, topic looks encyclopedic and worthy of coverage. Silensor 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets all content policies, therefore no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, the article meets all content policies. Certainly WP:NOT is among those. There's no reasonable interpretation of WP:NOT that would exclude this article. (Nor is it clear that deletion would be a reasonable fix if the article did not meet WP:NOT, though in this case that is beside the point.) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of random information. And as to how to deal with those two issues, what would you propose other than deletion?JoshuaZ 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You make reference to two sections of WP:NOT, that A) Wikipedia is not a directory, and B) Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. WP:NOT defines these terms as follows: A) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. NOT APPLICABLE, and 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business Now this what is raised as an issue, but WP:NOT defines this as For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. There is just nothing in this clause of WP:NOT that seems relevant to making this particular article improper. B) Next we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is defined as 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Travel guides. NOT APPLICABLE; 3. Memorials. NOT APPLICABLE; 4. Instruction manuals. NOT APPLICABLE; 5. Internet guides.NOT APPLICABLE; 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. NOT APPLICABLE; 7. Plot summaries. NOT APPLICABLE, Again, there is no aspect of this clause of WP:NOT that seems applicable in any way to this article. WP:NOT is often thrown out as a justification to delete articles, but I agree completely with Christopher Parham that it simply doesn't apply in this case. Alansohn 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        As to the first point, this entry is little more than an address easily in the "phonebook entries" category. As to the second point, it should be apparent that the list there is not intended to be exhaustive. In fact, almost daily, articles are deleted per WP:NOT's "random collection" criterion even if they don't fall into exactly one of those categories. JoshuaZ 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know what's printed in your phone book, but in mine, phonebook entries look like North View Primary School 123 Main Street 123-456-7890. This article far exceeds what a phonebook entry is, by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that WP:NOT's "indiscriminate collection" clause is used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia", and the fact that there are many people who misuse it and get articles deleted, does not make it a valid argument. The examples provided are intended to serve as cardinal prototypes of "indiscriminate collections", and none of them are within miles of this article. How can we meaningfully apply Wikipedia criteria if their clearcut meaning can be changed to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. You don'texcuse bad arguments to keep (e.g. the fact that some similar article was kept doesn't justify retention of this one), why should a bad argument re WP:NOT (e.g., other people use it to mean something other than what it says and they delete articles anyway) be acceptable? Alansohn 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Frequently, information that on its own is random can be placed with other relevant information to create a good article. Deletion is rarely the best thing to do with verifiable information; the ideal solution is to present it in a digestible format in its proper context, so that it is accessible to those who will find it useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article as it stands now does not seem to meet the retention standards set by WP:SCHOOLS. However, this is an article that was one of the first created by a brand new user. While it lacks sources (thanks to Kappa and JoshuaZ for taking the time to do some research and make improvements), it does make claims of notability regarding alumni, which I was unable to verify, perhaps as the school is in Singapore. That the article was prod'ed hours barely six hours after the article was created, and then put here on AfD less than 12 hours after that is simply not adequate time to allow a fully formed article to be created. While I have no reason to believe any bad faith was involved, I do not feel that anyways near adequate time was allowed to improve the article or address the prod tag. Alansohn 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abandom AfD This is another instance of the Wikipedia delete, delete delight song. A new user should not be welcomed by this song however bad their article is. Yes, OK, raise a concern on the page, tell them how to address the concerns, and if they don't improve then put an AfD, but with such a new article and new use an AfD notice so soon is simply an abuse of process. --Mike 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn schoole, and would Mike take the same view if the newbie wrote an article about his/her pet? c'mon we don't relax keepability standards based on the newness of the article's creator. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46 - come on lets keep this in proportion, most schools have many pets, therefore by your own argument if it is arguable to have an article about one's pet then it clearly is acceptable to have it about numerous pets, and their owners! But seriously, almost all schools should be in Wikipedia in some form or other. There are many advantages to WIkipedia to have them in. Very oftent he writers are new users and therefore the AfD is inappropriate and all in all I don't know why there is so much time wasted trying to get them deleted, it only does the reputation of Wikipedia a great deal of harm! --Mike 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article needs time to develop. It already shows that the school competes and even wins in interschool competition. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Bad faith" means, nominated for deletion for some ulterior purpose - i.e., not because I believed the article should be deleted per Wiki policy. If you study the whole history you will see that I put a prod on this article as it is a primary school, generally considered not notable in previous AfD debates. I told the creator of the article on their Talk page that I had put the prod in place, explained why, told them how to remove the prod and asked for them to make clear why the school was notable if they removed the prod. The prod was removed without any further edits to the article. I then brought it to AfD and told the creator I had done so. A lot of effort to go to if I just wanted something deleted for a "bad faith" reason, don't you think. QuiteUnusual 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created a new article entitled Schools in Yishun which can be a start toward building an encyclopedic treatment of this and the other weak, directory-style stubs. I believe that the guideline WP:LOCAL provides reasonable recommendations and I am trying to see them through. To that end, it would be helpful if this article were made into a redirect rather than merely deleted. Very little of the information currently in the article is of encyclopedic interest, other than the fact of its existence. The linked articles, however, do contain some information of general interest regarding Singapore's approach to education. --Dystopos 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above. "Schools are notable" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument from evidence. This is a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above by Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above commenters. This article should be given time to develop. Yamaguchi先生 06:38, 9 November 2006
Delete per WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:LOCAL. Vegaswikian 07:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary school without any claims to particular notability. Eluchil404 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn, deletion seems hasty to me. Accurizer 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for expansion per Alansohn's comments above. bbx 09:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. The best solution per subpage policy. W.marsh 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showdown at Cremation Creek (Part II)/Act-Scene Style[edit]

Appeared to be abandoned by its creator, and somehow, the warning "Do not delete this page or redirect it elsewhere" seems really inappropriate, rude, and probably shows that the creator is not interested in collaborative work. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing for deletion:

Showdown at Cremation Creek (Part II)/Subplot Style
Erm... "abandoned by creator" is not really a reason for deletion. Kavadi carrier 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps delete both as unsourced in the absence of a better deletion rationale. Kavadi carrier 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move It appears to be a template for a new style for episode articles for The Venture Bros.. Per the subpage policy, this should not be in the mainspace, but can be in the talkspace. And maybe we can drop a line to the creator and/or other people interested in the Venture Bros. if they want to do anything with this, or perhaps if they want to consider WP:CSD#G4.-- danntm ^T _C 22:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it's a subpage. Danny Lilithborne 01:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to user space: DCEdwards1966 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clichés used in business and industry[edit]

Original Research. Inherently POV. Non-Encyclopedic Alex Bakharev 09:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is WP:OR as there are no references. QuiteUnusual 09:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Kavadi carrier 10:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless list, original research. MER-C 12:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as all original research. TheRanger 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another unsourced cliche list. Danny Lilithborne 01:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I like lists and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Buzzword bingo Not OR, because I added fourteen references from a variety of technical journals, personnel journals, Wall Street Journal, and People citing phrases from the set used here and discussing the problem of management cliches as an impediment to effective communication with employees. Edison 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we need this when we already have this much more comprehensive list: List of idioms in the English language. Ohconfucius 06:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already merged to Christianity in Lebanon. GRBerry 02:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Christian Groups[edit]

Meaningless duplication of existing articles NHSavage 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) This page has no real purpose. The content is covered much better in other pages such as: Demographics of Lebanon and History of Lebanon. Its content does not merge easily to one article or I would propose merger. It is also badly written and does not really cover Lebanese Christoan groups as such, merely some random aspects of Christians in Lebanon.--NHSavage 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to religion in Lebanon and cleanup to provide an overview of all faiths in that country. Nothing like an overview exists in Category:Religion in Lebanon, sadly. Kavadi carrier 10:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Christianity in Lebanon. On second thoughts it might be better to merge with Christianity in Lebanon rather than delete. it might be that there is a need for the religion in Lebanon but that is really way beyond what I want to do. I only started on this article as it is labelled for wikiification.--NHSavage 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NHSavage. No need for the same information to be presented twice. If you'd like to take the initiative, go for it. humblefool ® 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed above. basicaly to avoid the spammers launching nnn articles each of the [nationality] [denomination] Groups title. -- Simon Cursitor 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge complete --NHSavage 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core des at 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stieff Silver[edit]

This article is unotable and written un-encyclopedically NauticaShad e s 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok, it's been re-written now. NauticaShad e s 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ company fails WP:CORP, although I suspect an article could possibly be written about their former factory as "the site is a national historic landmark". Kavadi carrier 10:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per above. --Ling.Nut 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a notable manufacturer of silverware. I found the following description: "Kirk Stieff Company, acquired by Lenox in 1990, is the business descendant of two famous 19th century companies, Samuel Kirk & Son and The Stieff Company. Samuel Kirk & Son, founded in 1815, is America’s oldest silversmith. The Stieff Company, founded in 1892, is known for its exacting reproductions of historical patterns, many of which can be found in the Smithsonian, and its expertise with the repoussé method of working silver."[13] --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic manufacturer and independantly sourced. --Oakshade 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TT. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two independent print references for notability. Edison 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added one independent print reference. --Stieffers 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that article expands on the history of the company. Good work. Kavadi carrier 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 06:39, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landel MailBug[edit]

Looks like advertising for non-notable product. Unless notability shown during this process, delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless more evidence of notability is given. Kavadi carrier 10:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above. utcursch | talk 10:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product. --- RockMFR 01:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to add-y at present. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert - InvictaHOG 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"jason janik"[edit]

Not notable enough Alex Bakharev 10:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Lots of photos from him in articles, but nothing seems to be written about him, hence non-notable. Kavadi carrier 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's in quotes, which is a good indication of the content (which is horrid, by the way). Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got 1660 google hits. Anyone else? Non-notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, website claims he is "award winning" but awards are not identified and cannot find any via Google or G-News. Accurizer 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez-Faire Penal colony[edit]

Original research Richard W.M. Jones 10:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay consisting of unsourced original research. No, Wikipedia articles may not cite other Wikipedia articles as references. Kavadi carrier 10:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely OR. Hut 8.5 12:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original research. TheRanger 14:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although this has existed, though not under this name. humblefool ® 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an OR essay. I'm sorry, but referencing Escape from New York just is not enough to verify a alternative form of prison system.-- danntm ^T _C 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR. Why would you ever allow prisoners to form their own government? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original unsourced research -Shana 10:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Exile, Penal transportation, Coventry (short story) - 4.250.132.77 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- OR, plain and simple. 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Smack (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was DeleteAlex Bakharev

Blind Eagles[edit]

From Speedy. Seems to deserve to go through AfD Alex Bakharev 11:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related articles Thursday Night Live (single), Venzy Derouge and Samksi Prozac. 152.16.16.31 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. When I read to the part when they were accosted by BMG I thought the article had hope but when you hit the controversy section all optimism evaporates. Choice cuts: "The Blind Eagles have openly told the media that they plan to kill the following people- Micheal Jackson, Prince, John Lennon,…. When finding out that most of those people were dead, the trio decided that they had done a good job and deserved a nap", "listeners realised that 3 songs on the album were noises of farm animals.Depite this, many songs still charted, but never as succesful as their debut album, which has now sold 19x Platinum. The main differences in their new album was… a decrease in the amount of toilet breaks", and last but not least ludicrous, "the lead guitarist… tragicly died in a bizarre paragliding accident. Scientists believe "The paraglider suddenly turned into a snowball and then vanished into thin air causing venz to freeze then combust and explode". Tell me this isn't BJAODN material! P.S. These articles are also vandalism. All the images used are just copied from other articles. Kavadi carrier 11:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense - is there such a thing as "Top 100 Mongolian Rap chart" and does anyone really care about it? Hut 8.5 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the picture isn't really of them. Hut 8.5 12:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core des at 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake La Botz[edit]

From speedy. The guy deserves an AfD Alex Bakharev 11:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep I found two full pages of content featuring him or his work on the first page of search results alone. [14] [15] Kavadi carrier 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. 15 results on Google News regarding current nationwide tour. Tagging for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two independent articles from mainstream press about him. Edison 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted by Zoe for an apparent serious violation of WP:BLP. --Core des at 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Todaro, Sr.[edit]

From speedy. What the policy for notability of gangsters? Alex Bakharev 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, unless the references cited aren't what they appear to be. Kavadi carrier 12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Going by the current version, it seems notable and broadly verifiable. Some of the specific claims may need to be removed if we can't find support somewhere, but I think the overall page is a keeper. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tremulous Keep as per Ben and Kavadi - Stammer 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A worthy person to be documented here... just needs a cleanup. Alexbonaro 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my own opinion, I believe he certainly notable enough. There are certainly relable resources to support this, however the only problem I see is the clean up and formatting issue. MadMax 01:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a cleanup, though - Skysmith 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Cyde. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Duck[edit]

Another semi-notable gangster. Was speedied then recreated, Never been to AfD Alex Bakharev 11:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original speedy nomination. Was re-created out of process, should have been taken to WP:DRV. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that is where you are wrong. Speedy deletions are not under the classification that you proposed, ie, db-repost. Ansell 12:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. It's somewhat easier to assess the notability of people when they're dead than when they're alive and this case is an example (cf Joseph Todaro, Sr AfD just above this one). Has been mentioned in a novel, a study and a magazine article. Appears to pass WP:BIO even by modern standards.Kavadi carrier 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and severely warn User:Nunh-huh for misuse of rollback, incivility as well as violating WP:ASR. This is not what administrators should be. – Ch acor 12:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback was not misused, I have not been uncivil, and I made no self-references. - Nunh-huh 12:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rollback#Dont.27s - "Do not revert good faith edits." – Ch acor 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back an edit which was inappropriately made using popups, as the person who did so acknowledged. - Nunh-huh 12:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs do not make a right. Since he noted and apologised you should have manually reverted. To roll it back was absolutely inappropriate. – Ch acor 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, manual reversion would have been a better solution. - Nunh-huh 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - referenced, semi-notability asserted. Doesn't seem too problematic right now. The fact that Nunh-huh has behaved inappropriately (and I am rather shocked by his behaviour) shouldn't have any bearing on the article itself. riana_dzasta 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is referenced. What is the actual reason based on the deletion guidelines? If there is none this should be a speedy keep. Admins edit warring to keep irrelevant db-repost tags on pages should have no bearing here. as stated above. Ansell 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
We are currently undergoing a major cleanup of material which used reference works by Jay Robert Nash as either a sole or primary source. I'm not entirely sure how many details I'm at liberty to mention (I'd have to ask Jimbo, I think), but there are some serious problems. Consequently, the article needs to go, at least temporarily. DS 15:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch, using his books as a source is definitely ungood. If this was indeed a character from his books, delete. humblefool ® 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - althought this is moot because mr Cyde speedily deleted the artricle again without waiting for the result of this Afd - Skysmith 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep old revisions deleted, but recreate article from better sources. Naconkantari 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Findagrave.com has a decent bio, with extensive contemporary quotations from the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle". Probably a good place to start. Choess 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to close this as a non-admin, since it's already been deleted. Cyde specifically said recreation was approved as long as better sources are found. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Genies[edit]

From speedy. I think they deserve an AfD Alex Bakharev 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single release does not notability confer. Delete. Kavadi carrier 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the EP seems to be self-released. The myspace entry invites you to email the band for details about the CD, and they do not have a record label. No press coverage mentioned. Darkspots 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I know plenty of notable bands that have no record label and no press. What's with the exclusivity, I thought wiki is about free information and complete knowledge. It's not a poorly-written article or a shameless "click here for our myspace" plug either. Keep the article.

Here's some information about the exclusivity: Wikipedia:Notability (music). I agree, it's not a badly written article. The band just doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Darkspots 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did read those too. It just doesn't seem right to discount a band based on what those who have never heard them play think of their notoriety. They are a local band, yes, but they deserve the page, if for nothing else besides wikipedia standards, their radio airtime.--168.122.227.8 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One quick point about the radio airtime. I went to the link from the article for Long Island's Radio X, which reviews a lot of bands in their music guide. No mention of the Game Genies. A search on another link, WTBU, found nothing for the Game Genies. The third link is a push--the website's under construction. These external links in the article are asking the reader to take it on faith that these radio stations are playing the Game Genies, instead of verifying in any way the notability of the band. The only external link, besides the band's own myspace link, that purports to verify the existence of the Game Genies is the link to Game Music 4 All, which allows anyone to submit a band listing and does not appear to verify the information that's given to it. It provides no information about the band except a link back to their myspace page. I did a google search for ("game genies" band) and came back with nothing except myspace hits, and the gamemusic4all.com link, which isn't verified. And a blog about a Canadian band called the Game Genies. And a link to The North Shore Youth Council Teen Band Nights. Cheers. Darkspots 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the radio airtime arguement, if you actually looked into the Northeastern Radio Station's playlists, you would find that they were played on air. Their Spinitron.com Radio Playlist account verifies this. Here and Here

I think that it would be worthwhile at this point to say that this deletion discussion is about both the band and the article about the band. It would strengthen the article if these links were included in it; however, the article links to quite a few websites that do not mention the Game Genies at all. On the google search that I did, the Game Genies' show at The North Shore Youth Council (based in Rocky Point, New York) Teen Band Night on July 20, 2006 made it to the first page of hits, and was the only outside link that I found about this band, so I mentioned it in this discussion. The spinitron link is several pages deep and I missed it. The point is, the article could have made sure that I didn't miss the spinitron link by including it, not an under-construction website. Darkspots 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could have been done, but it would seem that the point of the radio station link was to display places the band 'was played rather than showing off the exact time and date. Putting the spotlight on the exact instance in which the music was broadcasted serves as nothing more as an advertisement for the group, which this website is vehemently against, with good reason. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge or information, not to appease standards through providing extremely specific hyperlinks. On the other hand, I would agree that this discussion has extended far beyond the actual article itself. While I do believe the article could be greatly strengthened, it is not a shamless plug for the group in question, making it difficult to decide on the issue of deletion.

Keep. The radio station airplay counts in their favor, as does the band's overall coolness. They may be a leading example of the genre of bands that perform video game music. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think they should be allowed to keep their atricles spot because they clearly have music in circulation that people might be curious about. They should keep their spot because The Game Genies is a good band and people should hear them! they have the right to an article and you, wikipedia, should allow them to give their fans more information on your so-called free encyclopedia. what damage could it do to add an article on a band, a good band in my opinion. that's my point.

Wikipedia is not a publicity vehicle for bands, sorry. Delete as non-notable, though I do wish them luck. humblefool ® 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of an encyclopedia is to learn about something.....to look it up, to read about it and to have the information on a certain subject. if thats "a publicity vehicle" then maybe you should think about how you run this website or even have it at all. If somebody wanted to read about this band(or any other band) why should they not be able to do so in an encyclopedia?

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. Wikipedia is not a collection of cruft about every flash-in-the-pan local band. Video game music, good grief. Herostratus 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band trying to promote themseleves through Wiki. IF they ever achievce the recognition of The Minibosses or The NESkimoes then they have grounds for an article. The Kinslayer 10:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Ridiculous. Nobody reads the wiki in search of new bands. The only people reading the article will be people who know they already exist and are looking for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afacini (talk • contribs)

I don't get it. Are you supporting the article or supporting deleting the article? The Kinslayer 13:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting keeping this article because it is clearly not a band promoting themselves via the wiki (that was the ridiculous part), and I'm challenging the non-notibility status, as well as the current standards of band acceptance to the wiki. I won't repeat myself, but I've posted my points above.Afacini 03:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Video game music, good grief.Herostratus 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"...so what your saying is that you want this article deleted because you do not like video game music? so the deciding factor to keep a bands page is some guys opinion?? So if you dont like the kind of music a band plays you delete their article? real cool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.161.212 (talk • contribs) [reply]

No I'm saying two separate things: (1) the band is unnotable and the article should be deleted, regardless of what their genre is and (2) while I'm here, I might as well point out that the existance of bands dedicated to video game music is surely a sign of the imminent collapse of Western civilization, if not indeed the very End Times, although this observation has no bearing on whether the article is deleted or not. Herostratus 07:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just making yourself sound biased about it. Way to support your point. Afacini

I'm sure if the music was all about kickin back, watchin a football game and drinking a nice cold one you'd be all for it....or maybe if the bands songs were about family guy, i know you people nowa days love quoting that show...

"...the existance of bands dedicated to video game music is surely a sign of.....[the] very End of Times." - That's a very intellegent statement, it must be very tough for you to have to deal with the inferior masses that frequent this site. Obviously you are far above such lowly forms of expression, judging from your classically inspired user name. I suppose if composers such as Wagner and Mozart were being covered it would live up to your expectations, although any sort of original interpretation of such works may be considered blasphemous. Change is indeed a frightening thing, I suppose it would be best if we were all xenophobes. It's one thing for you to dislike a genre of music, but to compare it to the degradation of society is just plain biased. (By the way, I recall learning of similar reactions when rock and roll came about...)

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

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

The result was Delete Alex Bakharev 13:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Night Live (single)[edit]

From speedy. Allegedly hoax Alex Bakharev 12:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Thursday Night Live" "Blind Eagles" gets ZERO results on Google, so it's probably a hoax. The article on the band has also been nominated for AfD, and also looks like a hoax. Hut 8.5 13:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a hoax if you read it through. Kazakhstan doesn't have a music channel for one. The folks for Blind Eagle were behind this one. Speedy delete, please… Kavadi carrier 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.L.-E.[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article consists of only rumours. Contested prod. MER-C 12:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 13:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article wasn't properly referenced before, as the refernces tag wasn't added. This appears to be a legitimate up-coming film (although the sources don't give much information), however, the article is titled incorrectly. According to the sources given, the name of the film should be "Wall-E." Wavy G 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall-E (film). Mind you, this article is about the same film. Why on Earth are their multiple articles about a rumoured upcoming film--all of them spelled differently??? Wavy G 04:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this before ,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.A.L.-E, it is still unsourced and just a rumor -- Coasttocoast 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Release date 2008! That's just a little far in the future. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this title, unless they decide to make this the official spelling. Georgia guy 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also under deletion consideration under another name, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall-E (film) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball, the Stanton info is still rumor, nothing else officially confirmed from any source other than a random blog entry, and no new information has come up from the first time this article was deleted. SpikeJones 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it please! Until an official announcement is made by Pixar or failing that, Disney.--211.26.122.95 11:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Eluchil404 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlike Rapunzel (film) and others, there is absolutely no official information available about this film. We don't even have an official working title. Wikipedia is not required to contain up-to-the-nanosecond information on everything at the expense of accuracy. Powers ^T 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Dragon (album)[edit]

An "upcoming album " from Sisqó. While rumored to be in the works, and likely very much in the works, no official announcement exists -- only fan messageboard hearsay. FuriousFreddy 13:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 35 google hits, so hasn't been announced yet officially or publicly. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not references, not verified, not notable. We are not a crystal ball. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecopath[edit]

Neologisms shouldn't have articles based on them. The term is fictitious and doesn't have a source (i.e. no fictional character is ever described in context as being an "ecopath". I believe the term was invented to parrallel technopath, but regardless, it's all OR/a user's own invention. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Google suggests this is a term which does not have any standard definition—I get many hits for a certain software, some for the path of fish in the sea, etc. Kavadi carrier 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xdenizen 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Garrigan[edit]

This has already been deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Garrigan. It was tagged as a repost but another user contends that the first deletion was in error because of a misunderstanding in the theatre in which she performed. I don't think that is completely true because a few editors mention that she appears to be big in Cleveland but not outside it yet. The article appears to fail WP:BIO just as other users contended in the first AfD. I think this should have gone the way of a speedy repost, but I've brought it here since the speedy was contested. Metros232 13:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI think her career is intrinsically interesting. Anyone interested in gender roles would be interested in her and her views (I would). The article needs more - but justifies staying. And I live in Wales. NIghtjar 14:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To my mind, trouser parts aren't anything new. Also, this isn't really the right place for it, but "Person of gender A playing the role of a person of gender B who wants to be gender A" strikes me as a really wrongheaded casting choice. It brings in an element of successful wish-fullfillment that really shouldn't be there. Would "Boys don't Cry" work with Chad Lowe in the lead role? And on a final note, it seems pretty clear that Alison Garrigan has not yet quit her day job. How many Equity points does she have? - Richfife 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the first discussion. I may also have interesting views but these alone do not make one notable for an article. And faulty talk page reasoning doesn't bode well for this article either—you can have local professional theatres. Kavadi carrier 15:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete, I think she falls just short of WP:BIO in that only one of the sources is actually about Garrigan herself (the interview). I don't espouse limiting notability to just national (after all most US states are larger than many countries), but it looks like she's hitting a career stride and may break through to broader coverage soon. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:DRV Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:DRV as well. I'm concerned that the article will be back over and over again in slightly tweaked form. - Richfife 02:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her work is in and with fully professional theaters, and the article has good references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the itch to delete. The article is their for people who are interested to follow a link to or to contribute to. No one is forced to access or read it. If some people aren't interested, concentrate on what you like, but don't interfere with other people's work. Cases for deletion are clear - they can be spotted a mile away. This one is substantial enough to keep. Soane 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply From the first deletion debate: Notability requirements on Wikipedia are an important way of keeping it from being completely inundated by random information about all 5 billion plus people on the planet, rendering it completely useless. As it is, "How come I can't have an article when they can!" is a constant refrain from every person that can drink a glass of beer really fast or stand on their head or got straight A's once. The line has to be drawn somewhere. - Richfife 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prior AFD didn't discuss sourcing specifically, so I don't know if the article then completely lacked sources, had the same ones, had different ones, etc... The current article has as sources a Cleveland Plain Dealer article primarily about her, which puts her half way to meeting WP:BIO. It has a trivial mention from the same newspaper, which doesn't help. It has a passing mention from www.clevescene.com, which adds nothing. It has an article from the Cleveland Jewish News that contains a sentence about her performance. This also doesn't meet the primary subject portion of the WP:BIO criteria. I believe none of the inline links are to independent reliable sources; the best of them is most likely to an actress provided bio-blurb. So I judge at this time that the article does not demonstrate notability to WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; borderline CSD A7 material, notability hasn't materialised within AfD period, and folks seem to agree. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Charter[edit]

Doesn't appear to be too notable of a certification organisation, and the article sure doesn't claim that, aside that the certifications are "popular" which is a rather weak claim to fame. Google search for "International Charter" IC9700 -wikipedia gets me 62 distinct hits, for IC9200 66 distinct hits. With duplicates, both searches go to 800s. Allegations of scam on the article talk page doesn't inspire confidence either. I'm just kind of bringing this to AfD to give them the benefit of doubt; I'd hammer this with CSD A7 if I were on a much worse mood. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This isn't the ISO for sure. Kavadi carrier 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! If it's International, then it must be important, and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. "If it's International, then it must be important"? Some people guess my nickname comes from "WWW", as in World Wide Web; does that fact alone make me important too? =) Just a hint - Wikipedia works slowly and you can't change deletion policies, or prevailing notability consensus, just by opposing a random deletion. Yeah, we delete stuff aggressively. (Wikipedia is still growing though.) It's irrelevant in this particular case though - we're here to assess whether or not this subject warrants an article or not. Can you explain why this subject is notable? (Note that I'm not busting out one of these newfangled "not verifiable" or "lacks reliable sources" cards, I'm using a bit older "the article has extremely, extremely weak claims to fame and cursory examination says the subject is not notable at all" deletion rationale.)
  Deletion situation is at times pretty depressing all right. I'm just questioning why you're anxious to proclaim this article a martyr and an example of jackbooted deletion happiness gone awry. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it did exist/was notable, would have got more google hit. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein in U.S. popular culture[edit]

WP:OR. Ai-teyfw 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original research. TheRanger 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unsourced TV-cruft. Kavadi carrier 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR.--Hús ö nd 01:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang this OR with him. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 03:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! South Park's reference alone make this article significant! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for this. Any notable appearances will be described with the show in question anyway. Seraphimblade 03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR. Do we really need an article on this? Can't it be mentioned in the Saddam Hussein article (if referenced)? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was originally split from Saddam Hussein due to length issues. Deleting this article will result in the content getting shuffled back in to Saddam Hussein and will detract from the tone of that article IMHO. Thatdog 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trying to prevent the content from appearing the Saddam Hussein is not a valid reason to keep this article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see WP:SIZE, there are valid reasons for article forks. hateless 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I think Thatdog makes a good point. --164.107.92.120 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not cleanup. hateless 02:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with ZimZalaBim. This isn't exactly a POV fork (a cruft fork?) Most of the content should just be deleted rather than merged into the main article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Baker[edit]

Non-notable actress. She had "one of the lead roles" on Palmetto Pointe, a show that lasted 12 episodes on I (TV network). That's not exactly NBC, ABC, etc. According to IMDB, the rest of her roles include: "Wardrobe Girl", "Waitress", "Girl in Marsh", one episode of "One Tree Hill", and an unnamed part in a made for TV movie. I don't think any of her parts, not even her lead role, makes her a notable actress. Metros232 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's probably been on my personal television. If bands with single albums and no-name professors can have articles, so can someone who has been on my TV. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is not a valid argument to keep; please refer to wiki policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only borderline notable, and WP:INN is pertinent here. Kavadi carrier 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Valrith 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. The argument mentioning no-name professors is a Wikipedia:Pokémon test; file it under "two wrongs don't make a right."--Ling.Nut 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I've never seen that before - that's nice. I still maintain that an actress with parts - guest or not - on notable TV shows alongside notable actors is notable. Would Yassmin Alers be a better comparison? How about Roy Leep? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is not a valid argument to keep; please refer to wiki policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. She is someway short of WP:BIO. Wish her the best of luck with her career, but a bit-part actress is by my definition not notable. Ohconfucius 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actresses with numerous appearances. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article suggests that she meets WP:BIO or that relaible sources, about her rather than work in which she was periferally involved, could be found. Eluchil404 09:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actress on national TV network/show. Best to have TMI than NEI. —Derrsonn 10:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC) --comment actually made by 68.226.191.39 (talk · contribs)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete taking into account SPAs and user blocked 6 weeks for AfD stuff. W.marsh 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"W" Association[edit]

Delete or maybe merge. Hard to say what this is. It "can refer to anything related to Ohio Wesleyan University" in the first sentence but the second says it "is an alumni organization". Yet another college organization that doesn't need a separate article. Google juice difficult to determine because the name is just "W". —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of group's notability. Kavadi carrier 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please. "per Kavadi carrier." --Ling.Nut 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge anything relevant but notable into the Ohio Wesleyan University article. If nothing notable or relevant, just delete the thing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I agree with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's comment above. It is strange that some articles will be allowed to stay like Cornelliana but other like this one will be removed. Last time, I checked there wasn't a good policy about this. At the end, I think this will discourage people to contribute. WikiprojectOWU 07:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Kavadi carrier 08:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other schools have same pages. Page should stay but should also be improved. Chicomo 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing that is WP:INDY. In fact, no sourcing at all. And in a two sentence article (one of them a run-on), it manages to seemingly contradict itself. (The relevant Wikiproject doesn't have enough activity or participation currently to meet the standards for forming a Wikiproject, but that is true of a lot of Wikiprojects.) It is used as a major header in the projects {{Ohio Wesleyan University}} template, so that should be adjusted to not include a wikilink. Other than that link, I think this would be an orphan article. Certainly neither the main article nor the list of alumni uses a prose link to this page. If it isn't important enough to get a prose link from the article on the University, I don't see how it can be important enough for Wikipedia. GRBerry 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ohio Wesleyan University#Student life. ~ trialsanderrors 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be improved for sure but I think there is good potential to provide information about college traditions related to the founding of the W association. Wassoc 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a single-purpose account. --MCB 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)</a>[reply]

Delete; this deserves two or three sentences in Ohio Wesleyan University at most; not its own article. --MCB 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Bloom[edit]

She does not conform to any criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (people). Her only clam to notability is one story about Madonna from six years ago and a story about being "Katie Melua's Lesbian lover" which in all probability is a load of rubbish. Hera1187 14:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:BIO. Kavadi carrier 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax. The quote about her being "the only gay in [her] village" is a running joke from the sketch show Little Britain. Wavy G 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a humorous phrase used by many people - not evidence of anything TerriNunn 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Hut 8.5 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain she is the subject of a major story in the best selling newspaper in the UK - she easily meets the notability criteria (which are not exhaustive in any case) e.g. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles . Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated. The question is: would a significant number of people expect/want to find out more about the subject? Yes. Retain. TerriNunn 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only source is a gossip column. A part-time paparazzi with one minor scoop, now dating a celebrity, but celebrity doesn't rub off. NN.--Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, the article itself is non-remeberable and is comprised completely of rumors.

There is almost NO basis for any of the gossip and the article itself is in no way remarkable. Wikipedia is a community, a website and an encyclopædia, the last thing it needs to be is a gossip forum.-ECH3LON 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She is definitely not the principal subject of multiple, non trivial published works. Ohconfucius 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no unverification.-- danntm ^T _C 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Weidberg[edit]

Non-notable actress. She "starred" on a TV show that lasted 12 episodes on the obscure American network I (formerly PAX-TV). That is her only TV role ever. She is also a member of a band. The name of the band (The Foxy Mondays) gets 57 Google hits. When you include her name with that, you get 3 hits: her IMDB biography and 2 MySpaces. Appears to fail WP:BIO to me. Metros232 14:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per nomination. Kavadi carrier 15:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obscure or not, I (formerly PAX-TV) is still a television network. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Palmetto Pointe again? See WP:BIO. --Ling.Nut 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Would not object to a merger of verifiable info to Palmetto Pointe. JoshuaZ 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close to an A7 speedy. Eluchil404 09:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best hrithik[edit]

Article for a movie that doesn't exist and is completely made up Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unsourced, just a list of people and an infobox. Should have been prodded first. Kavadi carrier 14:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Kavadi carrier. May be a prank based on the name of a popular Bollywood actor. If a real movie, I would have found something about it. Didn't.--Ling.Nut 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax.--Hús ö nd 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dodgy prank. riana_dzasta 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why isn't hoax a speedy criteria? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiVis[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded, deleted, challenged post-factum. Prod was "does not establish notability, seems to fail WP:Software, only 56 google hits". It bears mentioning that the article asserts that the creator of the software, Robert Biuk-Aghai, wrote the article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. It's worth noting that this article has a German-language counterpart in the de:Wikipedia namespace (de:Wikipedia:Wikivis) that is interwiki-linked to en:WikiVis. I suppose we could move some of the content in this article somewhere in our own Wikipedia namespace if it is found to be useful. —Caesura ^(t) 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move? If it's freeware and we can get a download link, perhaps list it under Wikipedia:Tools. Otherwise delete. Koweja 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE --MaNeMeBasat 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Given that this was an academic research project, there are probably some ideas in this article that could be merged into another article on visualization techniques. Alternately, is there a generic name for this type of software or visualization technique? My gut feeling is that the concepts in this article would be a good contribution to a more general article. Kla'quot 06:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it, especially the picture, could be merged into Scientific visualization which is in dire need of both cleanup and expansion. Kla'quot 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm changing my vote as there does not seem to be anyone motivated enough to merge this into another article. Kla'quot 09:35, 11 November 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, Avi 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. Kavadi carrier 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Vegaswikian 07:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Christian[edit]

Ex American Idol contestant with not much going on. No notability outside of the show, no hit singles etc. Her 601 unique GHits are almost all pointing to reality fansites, or articles which mention her in passing along with the other contestants. Her illustrious career seems to have ground to a dead halt, with this USA Today blog from June 06 confirming that she has all but disappeared, thus probably fulfilling consensus criteria for delete. Ohconfucius 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her 15 minutes of fame are up. The article was untouched for all of three months before the AfD tag was added. Kavadi carrier 14:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beginning to wonder if the WP:BIO page actually exists. Apparently no one has seen it.--Ling.Nut 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn former reality star. I am sure folks know of the WP:BIO guidelines and ignore them anyway. Montco 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is not a valid argument to keep; please refer to wiki policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 06:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per we're not your American Idol headquarters. If we had an article on every person... -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the show as a plausible search item.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No AMG bio, IMBd bio consists of an appearance on CSI and various AI recap shows. Even her MySpace page is bereft of an assertion of notability. Caknuck 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Kusma as repost of material deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhter Munir Marwat. Kavadi carrier 15:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Munir Marwat[edit]

Speedy Delete The Article was started earlier on as well and was deleted by consensus of the editors. The writer has recreated the same out of pure vanity and to push some of his other POV. --Marwatt 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Magazine Covers and Comics[edit]

Original research, listcruft, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Sounds interesting and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good part of this article ("Inspirations", "Storylines", "Comic Strips") isn't even related to the topic. Once that's gone, there's basically nothing left except "People do Photoshop modifications sometimes. They're funny." which doesn't add up to an article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Janniger[edit]

Some assertion of notability, making it non-speediable, but not much support for the assertion. The inclusion of contact info for this physician's private practice adds a note of spam. (Note - PROD tag removed by anonymous editor without comment) FreplySpang 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources. "References" cited are spam links/directions to office. Seraphimblade 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertising. Kavadi carrier 15:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and probably a conflict of interest judging rrom the creator's name. Montco 23:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (vanispamcruftisement). Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please note that the preceding user has been posting this exact same argument on over ten AfD's (as of this writing) with no discussion of the individual case's merits in any case. Seraphimblade 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would hope that we do discourage folks who come in with the intention of creating vanity and spam articles. Montco 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my default keep message! I made some slight alterations when needed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When all else fails and the article is hard on the eyes to read, google it. Less than 50. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to be a conflict of interest: Author is User:Ejanniger. Article also fails WP:NPOV, and is at best a cleanup candidate. Ohconfucius 07:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Number[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Attempt to promote a new idea that is of limited interest outside the author's social/academic circle. PROD tag removed without comment by author. FreplySpang 15:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, WP:NFT indeed. Kavadi carrier 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hut 8.5 17:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT.--Hús ö nd 01:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT for something made up one day wherever. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination plus avoiding neologisms. After Googling this for a while, I was unable to find any references to this concept (other than this article). Ariah 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HanDeDICT[edit]

Originally tagged for a speedy under A3/A1 (possibly A7), contested Z388 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE exceedingly. Kavadi carrier 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all the speedies it qualifies under. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : this is a "stub", let time to improve it. This will be expand by translating from de:HanDeDict within one or two week. Ask deletion 1 minutes after its creation is absurd (in fact simply stupid). Yug (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always move the article into your user space to let you fully translate at your own pace, then move it back as an article when you're done. Otherwise you still have five days to translate this before the discussion is finally evaluated. Kavadi carrier 13:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If Babelfish is to be believed [16], the German version of this article doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE either. So even if you translated everything the outcome will still be delete. Kavadi carrier 13:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fujitsumon[edit]

No evidence that this is a recognized digimon. It might be fanfiction but I can't even confirm that. Google got 795 hits but only 28 unique and I can't find any that say anything other than that it is a non-recognized, basically unknown, digimon. No evidence of being canon. No evidence it will be expandable beyond stub. Propose deletion as currently unverifiable. RJFJR 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and likely non-notable even if real. Kavadi carrier 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all mean it should delete if no soucre where came from.Omagaalpha 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present state. No precedent for other articles though. Punkmorten 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zshew 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Finlay[edit]

We cannot create page for each scientist unless he is significant and encyclopaedic. I had created page of my supervisor who had PhD degrees from Stanford University and numerous publications but that page was speedy-deleted by an admin. Similarly nothing significant about this scientist and this page should be speedy deleted. ابراهيم 15:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT issues with the nominator aside, I think this should be deleted for not saying whether this person is notable. Kavadi carrier 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G10) Text of page is copied from here. Site has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Also, the article fails to assert subject's notability. Caknuck 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No comment on this particular article, but I don't think this is the right way to react to some other article being wrongly speedy deleted. You should request that article to be undeleted and brought to AFD, or simply recreate it in expanded and improved form. up+land 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to your comment: I have not said that my Professor article was "wrongly" deleted. It was the first article I had created when I did not know anything about wikipedia. I now understand that it was rightly deleted. See I also have seven publications and working towards more. It does not mean article related to me should be created and all other such people (we are in 1000s). However, if someone do something really extra-ordinary ONLY then an article should be created about him. Only then ones work becomes encyclopaedic. --- ابراهيم 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for the misunderstanding, but in that case I don't think you should have brought that up. It is better to refer to WP:PROFTEST, which is a quite decent proposed guideline for the notability of academics. As far as I can see, Finlay doesn't really pass the test yet. (And notable academics are at least nominated for deletion quite often around here; we have had a Yale professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences on AFD recently, and I deprodded another NAS member and a Fellow of the Royal Society just a few days ago, just to mention some very recent cases. That an actually notable scientist might have been speedy deleted by mistake is quite believable.) up+land 10:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "... in that case I don't think you should have brought that up". May be you are right about this. --- ابراهيم 10:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF . Leibniz 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a copyvio, why is it still here? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies featured on Arthur[edit]

Cruft. Is it necessary to have an entire article just pointing out every parody in Arthur? DietLimeCola 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Kicking222 16:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a no to deletion, or a no to this article? DietLimeCola 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was answering your question :) . —Whomp ^(myedits) 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —Whomp ^(myedits) 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I have put a lot of research into this. RAM 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as list cruft, maybe merge it into an article particular to Arthur. Sorry, RAM, but "a lot of research" does not warrant an article as not list cruft. --Dennisthe2 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unsourced and likely original research. Kavadi carrier 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong request to stop crying If it makes you feel better I will merge this into the Athur TV show. And as far as DietLimeCola goes, virtually every TV show has this so called "cruft" you speak off. What seperated this from The Simpsons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkkicks (talk • contribs) November 6th 2006.
Comment Will you grow up? This is cruft, plain and simple. And if you move it to the main Arthur page, it'll still be cruft. Stop going crazy because an article that you like is nominated for AFD, and everyone is voting to delete it. DietLimeCola 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit the personal attacks. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will I grow up? I'm not the jackass who was blocked for pretending to be an admin and thought he'd foil someone who was looking at a global warming page. You have absolutelty no business even nomanating stuff to be deleted. When you actually have some say on Wikipedia, get back to me.Dkkicks 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? I apologized for that stuff a LONG time ago, its in the past, and everyone moved on. If you READ, even though it wasn't the right thing, I had a special reason why I did that to Global Warming. It's none of your buisness, I can nominate any article I want if it doesn't fit into Wikipedia, get over it. Save the drama for somewhere else, I'm done with this BS. DietLimeCola 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic minutae. Indrian 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's a good show and the page is well formated.. and it is sourced. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking sources. Thus, it's original research. Interrobamf 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you must delete it, delete everything in the "In popular culture" category. Matty-chan 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was semi-speedy delete, WP:SNOW. Chick Bowen 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratufuckulations[edit]

Unsourced WP:NEO. _JD^talk 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Palfrey 16:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO applies. We don't need an infinite collection of articles for every instance in which the F-bomb can be used as an infix. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oh, how cute, we already have an article on expletive infixation. No merge. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why are we wasting time taking this seriously? I guess because... uh...--Ling.Nut 19:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defuckinglete because its funny to use ironic votes, and everyone else's arguments. —Mitaphane _talk 00:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This made-up article is probably just some prankster on wikipedia. Why are we wasting valuable time ACTUALLY considering what to do?! If someone can answer this question, i'll rethink my opinion:

Why SHOULDN'T we delete the article?-ECH3LON 00:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neof#cker.--Hús ö nd 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fuckin' delete, belongs on UrbDic, not here. riana_dzasta 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Just stupid. Xdenizen 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin will kindly see this user's talk page. riana_dzasta (talk · contribs · count) 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a valid arguFuckinment to be used against deFuckinletion. ;-) Ohconfucius 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K33p3rs j33p3rs!!11one. Previous person brings up an important point. What would happen to Wikipedia if we keep deleting such exemplary articles??? In-fucking-credible. We should keep this so we can bring it up to FA status! --C S (Talk) 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT urban dictionary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Resolute 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not vandalize other users signatures, as you did with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Resolute 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect, a redirect is all that's being requested here. We do not delete before redirecting in order to preserve page history for GFDL attribution requirements. Kavadi carrier 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPLS Fast Reroute[edit]

This page is similar to MPLS_local_protection. There is no need for both article to exist. We have already merge useful information from this article on that article. Hence this article is only taking useless space. Therefore it should be deleted and redirected to MPLS_local_protection ابراهيم 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is this a request to merge the artcile into MPLS local protection. If it is, then the article should be tagged with a merge tag and the merge should be discussed on the article talk page, not brought to Articles for Deletion.-- danntm ^T _C 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a reposted article concerning a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacemonkey Productions[edit]

Non-notable production company - i.e. "received over a hundred clicks", non-encyclopedic/vanity - i.e. "we, our" etc. No article links to it (apart from one redirect). No references regarding notability. I placed it in WP:PROD, but it was removed by 87.74.69.75. Andrius 16:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add - page was deleted once before and has been recreated. Andrius 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 (see here). Throwing video clips on youTube doesn't make you a notable WP:CORP(if you can call it that) and would fail WP:V or WP:OR. Mitaphane _talk 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 doesn't apply if it wasn't deleted in an AfD. However, you can still vote Speedy Delete under the original criteria of G7, which is what I'm doing. Danny Lilithborne 01:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete still no assertion of notability. Kavadi carrier 01:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube doesn't make you notable, or your "company". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoraSafe[edit]

This person may be well-known within Habbo circles, but does she have notability elsewhere? No sources exist in the article for that. Peter O. (Talk) 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability other than being popular in a chatroom? No other references to the real name found. Article is completely unsupportable. Kuru ^talk 16:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability elsewhere. Palfrey 22:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core des at 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woods Theatre[edit]

NN defunct movie theater, no sources, could be OR - crz crztalk 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a source, and I found several items related to the theater (which was once a live theater, and later a "movie palace") at ebay. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Woods+Theatre%22+site%3Aebay.com Big downtown theaters such as this one were designed to impress, so that many were architecturally notable. The fact that the building no longer exists shouldn't detract from the fact that it played a significant role in live and filmed entertainment in Chicago for many years. Once notable, always notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Truthbringertoronto. Appears to have an interesting history. Kavadi carrier 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah keep it, it has a (pretty average yet existent) source †he Bread 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may have an interesting history, but it is non-notable. It's no Biograph, which is on the national register and is where Dillinger was shot. No sources citing notability for architecture, news events, or anything else. One of hundreds of old "interesting" buildings demolished every year. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aguerriero, it may have existed, but it seems nothing about it really stands out. Yanksox 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamuthu Karthikeyan Osho[edit]

Does assert notability, but notability is unverified. Edit history suggests autobiographical vanity, and the creator of the article also acts as if he owns the article. Delete unless notability independently shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced vanity. Kavadi carrier 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any indication that his poems are not either self-published or "published" on various poetry web sites. Plus, his poems suck. Herostratus 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Herostratus, I haven't been able to verify notability. Granted, I got tired of looking after the first 50 Google hits that were simply self-promotion. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. Kathy A. 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be a fascinating project but no evidence of third-party coverage was presented, which is really what's needed for inclusion of articles, not subject arguments about the number of downloads per month and so on. W.marsh 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seed7[edit]

Minor programming language with no verifiable userbase.
While Wikipedia includes articles on a number of other minor programming languages, most of these have some other source of notability -- e.g. F Sharp programming language is notable for the Microsoft connection, while Malbolge and Unlambda are notorious in the programming languages community for their difficulty of use. So far as I can tell, Seed7 has nothing.
The WP:SOFTWARE proposal, while not an official policy, is a useful metric for deciding what software should be included. It's worth noting that Seed7 fails it completely; it appears that the only published document about the language is a thesis written by its creator.
Google rankings are a flawed metric, but extremely small numbers of Google results for software is often a useful indicator of non-notability. Seed7 fails here too: "seed7 programming -wikipedia" returns just 120-odd unique results. (Searching without "programming" includes many false positives, and the number of unique results returned is still under 1000.) — Haeleth Talk 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haeleth's well-detailed nomination. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, but I note that unique hits will never be more than 1,000 for any search term. See WP:GOOGLE#On .22unique.22 results. Kavadi carrier 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seed7 has around 100 downloads each month (see SourceForge statistic) which is a small but existing user base.

There are several programming languages with small user bases which have wikipedia articles: A++, BuildProfessional, ChucK, Escapade, Frink, F Sharp programming language, Godiva programming language, Joy programming language, Joule programming language, Kvikkalkul programming language, Malbolge, Nial, Nemerle, Pizza programming language, Revolution programming language, SuperCollider programming language, Unlambda, Var'aq, XOTcl, Z programming language, ZZT-oop.

It is argued that some of this languages are notable for having a Microsoft connection or being difficult to use. This sounds just strange and is no argument at all (Btw.: Seed7 programs are very portable and run under Unix and Windows without any change. And it is easy to turn Seed7 into a difficult to use language since the language is extendable and the interpreter is booted (see below)).

IMHO Seed7 is notable because it has several features which are not found in other programming languages:

The possibility to declare new statements (syntactical and semantically) in the same way as functions are declared (There are also user definable operators with priority and associativity).
Declaration constructs for constant-, variable-, function-, parameter-, and other declarations are described in Seed7 (The user can change existing declaration constructs or invent new ones).
Templates use no special syntax. They are just functions with type parameters or a type result (For example: array, hash, struct and set use a Pascal inspired syntax and semantic. In Seed7 they are not hard coded in the compiler but are templates described in Seed7).
Seed7 is a syntactically and semantically extendable language: Almost all of the Seed7 language (statements, operators, declaration constructs, and more) is defined in Seed7 in an include file (seed7_05.s7i).
The application program contains an include statement and the hi interpreter is booted with the language description when it starts. This way it is possible to define language variants or a totally different language.

Other Seed7 features are not unique but are rare and cannot be found in this combination. Hans Bauer 10:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, no indication of third-party coverage provided, no evidence found that Seed7 has made a significant documented contribution to its field. The details provided by Mr. Bauer are of some limited interest to a few people but none are enough to make the subject encyclopedic. Barno 17:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in my company we use Seed7 successfully as scripting language (instead of a "write only" scripting language). We do not publish our scripts, therefore you cannot find anything about that in the internet. I think that Seed7 is used by a lot of people as workhorse without telling Google about it. So Seed7 is definitely of interest to much more than just a few people. On the other hand there are "student joke languages" which are designed to be "difficulty of use". Other students write in a homepage about the 20th version of the "Hello, world!" or other "Mickey Mouse" program in this language. Although such languages are not used for "real world programs" you get a lot of Google hits for this languages. In contrast to such languages there are several non trivial applications written in Seed7. What about Dnafight, there are also rewrites of Apple Panic and Castle Adventure. You can find several games (Shisen, Memory, Tetris, Startrek, Wizards Castle, Sudoku), simulations (Wator, Game of Life, Eliza), a basic interpreter and more. In total you can find more then 50000 lines of Seed7 code. I do not want to delete pages about "joke languages", but I think Seed7 has more right to stay in wikipedia. Zron 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) — Zron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has 17 edits. Kavadi carrier 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apart from seed7's own sourceforge site, there are only two English mentions of "seed7 dnafight" on non-blog/wiki/forum sites, [17] (a one line mention) and [18] (which is the p/l author talking about the p/l). Both constitute trivial mentions and I can be quite sure, if the one of the most popular programs written in seed7 is so obscure, then the main p/l itself can't fare much better. A little more popular than the esoteric programming languages maybe (incidentally, we had an AfD for these too a few months back), but probably not by much. Kavadi carrier 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that Seed7 is probably more popular than the esoteric programming languages, but still insist that it must be removed. No arguments count for you, It is just necessary that your goal is reached. -- Zron 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. It has a userbase (if small) outside of its author, is the subject of a thesis, and incorporates a few interesting (if not unique) features that haven't yet found their way into the programming mainstream. This meets my minimum inclusion criteria. However, the current article consists mostly out of how-to and example material; this should be almost entirely trimmed away and replaced with a more encyclopedic discussion of the language's salient features, and how they compare to other languages. --Piet Delport 11:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO Seed7 is notable because of the following reasons:

WP:SOFTWARE is not a policy. It is a proposal for a guideline. It is still under discussion and far away from any consensus.
This comparison table shows Google hits for languages with small user bases (from Mr. Bauer's list). The search for "name programming language" has low counts for all languages in the table. Seed7 fits good in the middle of the hit values of "name programming language". Conclusion: When all these languages have the right to stay in wikipedia, Seed7 should also have the same right to stay.
Seed7 has a user base which can be seen at the sourceforge statistics, at freshmeat and in this Google group discussion.
I agree with other people here, that Seed7 contains several unique innovations.
Here is an abstract of the diploma thesis from Thomas Mertes in German and there is also a Doctorate thesis from Mr. Mertes where the (German) abstract can be found here (search for Mertes).

Georg Peter 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) — Georg Peter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has 45 edits. Kavadi carrier 05:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to those arguing for keep: So far the proponents for keeping this article have presented one, and only one, source for all the information about this programming language - the man Thomas Mertes himself. The Sourceforge site, the thesis - all are his work. By presenting only the self-published work of one person, the article is in blatant violation of our verifiability policy, which states that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

If you want this article to be kept, the place for arguing it is not on this page. Go find references to reliable sources totally unrelated to Thomas Merkel who have written about seed7, be they online references or offline. Add these references, if you can find them, into the article. That's the convincing way to argue for its keeping. Not by harping on its "innovativeness", or "user base", or "right to stay" (which, by the way, is a concept as real as luminiferous ether is). After adding references we'll see you back here.

In the event there are no references to be found, do not expect the article to be kept; even so, do take to heart that deletion does not preclude the later writing of an article on seed7 with sufficient references. If Wikipedia were around in 1991, Linux would not have deserved an article back then. Kavadi carrier 12:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy also states: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field"

And: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about themselves [...]"

In other words, for the purpose of verifiability, Mertes's self-published works about Seed7 are eligible sources.

This is independent of Mertes's theses, which are peer-reviewed and not self-published, thus definitely qualifying as reliable sources. (I don't know where you get the idea that sources have to be somehow "totally unrelated" to Thomas Mertes; this is simply not true.)

In other words, there is no question about Seed7's verifiability, only about its notability, which is what's being argued above. --Piet Delport 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you have omitted the fact that this article is still based upon only one source. Hence this article fails the notability guideline which states, "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources". At best, this deserves only a mention in list of programming languages and definitely not its own article. Kavadi carrier 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of people writing about seed7 apart from Mertes implies that all we have about seed7 will simply be a re-hash of his writings. Wikipedia is not the place to mirror someone's website. Kavadi carrier 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reliable sources is a guidline (and not a policy), but in the moment: The status of this guideline is disputed. I think this should be taken into account. Glass Tomato 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With short googling I found a Spanish page describing Seed7, a discussion about operators and their definition in Seed7, a German page describing a Seed7 example, a page mentioning the rewrite of Apple Panic in Seed7, an article mentioning the Seed7 announcement, another article about the Seed7 announcement, a code collection with some Seed7 examples, a question about online CVS of Seed7, the softpedia page of Seed7. The links show that Seed7 is used and written about by several persons (beside Mr. Mertes). The various arguments to keep Seed7 are convincing. Additionally I have some points:

The "right to stay" mentioned by several other persons should IMHO be replaced by "fairness" and "equal rights" as in: Equal rights for the programming languages listed by Mr. Bauer and Seed7.

To the "one source of information" discussion: Wikipedia:Notability says at the top: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". The homepage of Seed7 is not "someone's website". It is a homepage at SourceForge which contains 100% open source content. That the Seed7 homepage is just written by Mr. Mertes is speculation. At least the Dnafight program mentions two other persons as copyright holder. Another argument against the "one source" idea: A thesis is a scientific work, which is subject of a review by experts in the field. Scientific publications are considered to be the most reliable source. And finally: The Seed7 wikipedia article does not make disputed claims, it just contains several programming examples. -- Glass Tomato 20:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The change of semantics to "fairness and equal rights" does not matter; we do not "guarantee" "rights" to any page. When you come to Articles for deletion, all that matters is the content and merits of the specific page, not the contents and merits of any other page, no matter how similar. Please do not use the existance of any other programming language page to plead to keep this one. We will come to delete other articles on programming languages that fail notability and/or verifiability like this one does; it is just a matter of time. Before anyone damages their credibility further by arguing along this line, please read inclusion is not an indicator of notability.

Let's examine the links you have given one by one to see if they indeed qualify as "independent reliable sources":

The Softpedia entry contains exactly the same description of seed7 as the Sourceforge site—which one copied the other is obvious.
The Google group's message is nothing but a casual "new version" thread from Mertes himself.
Codecodex is a wiki. For virtually all purposes wikis are not reliable sources since they allow anyone to post without disclosing their real identities.
Announcements such as [19] and [20] tell us next to nothing other than what the sourceforge site already says. As expected, their source is Mertes himself.
To say that this mention of the port of Apple Trivia to seed7 is a reliable source is to stretch the limits of credibility. We have no idea who the person making the post is, other than his online handle, so that does not count as reliable source either.
The German page is a direct translation of the examples on Sourceforge, specifically the clock example, and statement declaration example. "Independent" source? I beg to differ.
With regards to the Spanish page, the Babelfish translated thus, "Interesting programming language, comparable, according to affirms their authors, to C++, Java or Ada, with numerous functions and a use fast and easy. In the page Web you can find information detailed on this program, gratuitous and available in English. So that it works you will need to have installed superior JRE 1,5 or." - nothing but a typical invitation to the software's website.

In the end, after examining all the links, whatever has been written about seed7 comes either from people of unknown identity - which automatically rules them out as reliable sources - or from Mertes himself (or people who parrot his descriptions, but this distinction is immaterial). The requirement for notability is not simply "multiple people have written". It is "multiple people have written in independent reliable sources". None of these links satisfy the requirement.

Responses to your additional points:

I have already touched on the nonsense concept that is "fairness and equal rights."

Millions of people died worldwide to reach "equal rights". For you this is just a "nonsense concept". Glass Tomato 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw... I love people who compare apples and oranges. We are an encyclopedia and we will be discriminate in our choice of articles. If things like seed7 get deleted, please don't take it as an offense. Just tell Mertes to get the IEEE and Mensa to cover his programming language. Then the article will get a better chance of survival. Rhetoric like yours won't work here. Kavadi carrier 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the Sourceforge site isn't a personal website for self-published work is wrong; anyone can create an account on Sourceforge and make a new project - in this aspect Sourceforge is no different from MySpace or Geocities, which also allow anyone to register and add content, albeit of a different type.
Your statement about the Dnafight program having multiple copyright holders does not dismiss the suspicion that a single person is responsible for all the content on the Sourceforge site, and in the absense of proof to the contrary, that is more likely than not to be the case.

This seems to be the "Guilty until proven innocent" concept. Glass Tomato 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No... it's more like the emperor parading around with no clothes on and his subjects refuse to acknowledge he doesn't have any. Kavadi carrier 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thesis may be a scientific work and a reliable source - nowhere have I said anything to the contrary - but at the end of the day it is still a single person's work. Peer review doesn't add anything to that work but prunes it of errors.
Your appeal to the "not set in stone" clause of Wikipedia:Notability rings hollow - no assertion has been made that seed7 is anything more than a homebrew programming language with a small group of fans, and hence there appears to be no case to treat it as an exception to the notability guidelines. To argue that seed7 is notable "because I use it" or "because my company uses it" is a fallacy - I use my laptop computer, but that doesn't mean it deserves an article.

Lastly, I agree that the seed7 article doesn't make disputed claims, but only gives examples. That is true - so true that the article is largely a copy-and-paste from different pages on the Sourceforge site. Since Mr Mertes has not posted any copyright notice on his site, we could assume that he still owns copyright on his writing by default, which means any copy-and-pasting from his site onto Wikipedia constitutes copyright infringement. I could slap a {{copyvio}} tag on the article right now and have an administrator delete it automatically within seven days, but I have been so amused by the weak arguments for keeping the article that I'd love to hear more. :-)

As you can see in the history, the wikipedia examples have been created before the Seed7 homepage existed. So there is no copyright infringement. Glass Tomato 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started 31 October last year. How do you know that the seed7 Sourceforge site is not older than that? Don't tell me that you're the operator of the site? Kavadi carrier 12:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I discovered Seed7 in December 2005 I searched for a homepage and did not find any. Glass Tomato 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have struck that paragraph out. Kavadi carrier 15:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~P.S. Vote-stacking tactics such as this are a little underhand for computer scientists, don't you think? ;-) Kavadi carrier 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I do not think it is illegal to invite somebody to a discussion. I think you behave here as if you were judge and executor. And is smells as if the decision has already been made up, independend of the discussion -- Zron 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kavadi, your insinuation is unfounded, and not altogether intellectually honest.

Firstly, i came to this discussion because the article is on my watchlist, not because of Zron's solicitation. Secondly, there is nothing underhanded about the solicitation, given that it was quite explicitly in response to my previously-expressed dissent toward deleting this article, predating this AfD discussion. This was a simple act of courtesy, not of vote-stacking: you should know this. --Piet Delport 12:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I withdraw my hasty allegation of "vote-stacking". Kavadi carrier 13:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate your integrity, and apologize for questioning it. --Piet Delport 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that Seed7 is not accused, but nevertheless I would like to put a final statement here.

Since 1989 I developed the programming language HAL as private project in my spare time. HAL was based on the ideas of my diploma thesis and dissertation.
In the year 2005 I renamed HAL to Seed7 and released it under the GPL.
Seed7 is a stable product, which can be used at any time. The Seed7 package consists of approx. 70000 lines in C (interpreter and runtime library), approx. 50000 lines Seed7 example programs, approx. 10000 lines Seed7 libraries and approx. 100 pages documentation.
Since January 2006 there is a homepage for Seed7 under http://seed7.sourceforge.net
As mentioned by someone else there are approximately 100 downloads each month.

Since I wrote the interpreter, the example programs and the documentation, almost everything that is written about Seed7 must be based on my work. This way it is unavoidable that similarities will be found in any derived work. All my work is open source and can be used by anybody for free. An open source project founded by several persons would never hear the "one person" argument.

As you can probably guess, a lot of time and effort went into the open source project Seed7. Everybody is invited to help Seed7 and other open source projects. I think there should generally be more focus on positive things which build something up instead of negative things which destroy something. Thomas Mertes 09:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) — Thomas Mertes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has 6 edits. Kavadi carrier 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- So you are not denying that the sole purpose of this article is to generate publicity for the work of one person - you? Kavadi carrier 09:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion is complete nonsense. As mentioned before, Seed7 gets around 100 downloads each month. Btw.: I have made "just a few edits" in wikipedia because I have a life (family, 3 children) and spend my spare time for something positive instead of spending my whole life in wikipedia deletion discussions. Thomas Mertes 12:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was reluctant keep... _JD^talk 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Grahame[edit]

Aside from the fact it's already been deleted once, after the first paragraph, which is mostly already in List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7), it's just a list of appearances and gossip more akin to a fansite which never once fulfils her career description in the lead. SteveLamacq43 17:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first time it was deleted the show was about 2 weeks old. It could do with a bit of a rewrite in places, but she is still notable. --Alex (Talk) 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fronted her own television show so notable enough for her own article Gungadin 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, per Gungadin. --Oakshade 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough before her on TV show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep own TV show, panel show appearances and National TV award i.e. notable SenorKristobbal 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable bits to List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7); the list of appearances should definitely be deleted; no other articles have that, with good reason.HamishMacBeth 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She had her own TV show.. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sourcing, and notable for that Princess Nikki show. Seems like kind of a useless person, but that's not grounds for deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She deserves her own article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.235.211 (talk • contribs)
Keep.BUT It needs to be rewritten-theres alot of needless stuff here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedphunk (talk • contribs)
Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 06:39, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerovator[edit]

The author of this article proposes a contraption that cannot work as intended because its aerodynamic drag is prohibitive. To overcome the drag thousands of powerful jet engines would be needed. State of the art rocket launchers are certainly more economical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towelhead (talk • contribs)

Comment. Whether the device described in this article is physically possible is not the issue. However, if this contraption was truly "proposed" here in this Wikipedia article, that would make it original research and thus ineligible for a Wikipedia article. No recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptions of many other outlandish space transportation contraptions are posted at:

http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/ http://www.geocities.com/danielravennest/CanonicalList.html http://www.vectorsite.net/tarokt.html

Some of these contraptions seem more practicable than the aerovator. Towelhead 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as original research. This suggests that the term is more commonly used for a gardening tool, in which case we could rewrite after the current version gets deleted. Kavadi carrier 01:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion that this should be deleted. The authors are apparently using Wikipedia as a place to publish a paper on their proposed concept and advocate it to the public. They should use a more appropriate venue, most preferably one of the research journals in the field of aerospace engineering, to publish original ideas. The question of whether it would work is not primary here-- for that discussion, though, they could put up a page elsewhere and discuss it there. If the article is published in a more appropriate page, it would be reasonable to put up a short Wikipedia article linking to it. Geoffrey.landis 15:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was "developed in May 2006 in a discussion on the Yahoo Group on space elevators..." - not exactly a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Besides which it wouldn't work. Fever dream. Herostratus 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of technical merit it seems clear from the talk page that this is original research done by the author or contributors. Stardust8212 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per herostratus Localzuk^(talk) 21:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the place to publish original ideas. Show me that the world has taken notice and I may vote differently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious ALI[edit]

Delete as obvious WP:HOAX; fails WP:V, is probably WP:VANITY for some wannabe underground rapper, not funny enough for WP:BJAODN. User who created this article has been blocked for vandalism before, and this seems to indicate no change in behavior, but I'll leave that can of worms to an administrator. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Trebor 22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing special, non notable, and is pathetic. Why are we debating to delete an article that is obviously a hoax, and has no point?

-ECH3LON 00:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolute stupidity. Don't block Lebo Thug, though, he'll certainly validly hang himself if he keeps this up. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete cruft, non-notable, vanity etc. almost certainly a hoax. Xdenizen 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn artist, presuming it isnt a hoax. Article has already been speedied once before. Resolute 05:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article is definately a hoax, he even supplies a link to his profile on bebo which shows a picture of him, and states his age as 14, he is school boy and vandilises the g-unit page constantly saying he is in G-unit, please delete this article
Delete, per basically everybody else. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article... obvious hoax! --SunStar Net 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G11 - crz crztalk 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester Jewish Police Association[edit]

A very small, new and local association. Most British police forces have local associations of this nature, and while national organisations such as the National Black Police Association, are notable, individual local associations are not. -- Necrothesp 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Police are important and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 05:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Trump[edit]

Notable person in all likelihood, but article is a vandals parody of his brother's (Donald Trump, Jr.) page. TonyTheTiger 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. This does not need to remain in the edit history. --Metropolitan90 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete current version as vandalism. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. Xdenizen 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if this is sourced. I made lots of spelling and grammar corrections, so at a minimum this article needs to be cleaned up. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be consensus. --Core des at 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lederer (II)[edit]

A 16 year old film editor who is a non notable person that does not meet WP:BIO. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is also unverifiable. Tarret 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating any sort of notability per WP:BIO; only "work" appears to be short film that was screened one time at a local film festival (and doesn't even look like it won). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Nishkid64 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Confusion over IMDB disambiguation roman numerals does not suggest strong research. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in vain. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to notability is a short film nominated (and not winning) at a regional film festival. Caknuck 05:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not good verifiable sources, remember that Wikipedia is not IMDB.-- danntm ^T _C 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, that seems understandable... 71.117.233.197 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, does not yet meet our guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 06:40, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Williss[edit]

Delete due to lack of WP:RS indicating that this individual meets WP:BIO. The organization of which he is a member may be notable, but being a state delegate to that party does not confer notability. The webzine of which he is the publisher has previously been deleted. Many of the external links are profile pages, primary sources, and so on, and I am hard pressed to find any on my own, but I am willing to reconsider if reliable sources are provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete unless notability is sourced. Trebor 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated his club World Ving Tsun Athletic Association for speedy and prod. If those get struck down, please consider adding that article to this nomination. Kavadi carrier 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to assert notability. Caknuck 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual is involved in several current events within the Wing Chun community including the Wing Chun Foundation, California Wing Chun Association, Wing Chun Teahouse and the World Ving Tsun Athletic Association. Although the individual's ezine may have been deleted, we should consider its re-inclusion due to it being the only ezine available for the Wing Chun community as a whole. In addition to state rep, the individual is also the Director of Public Relations for the World Ving Tsun Athletic Association. Please review the individual's external links. Dai Bak Lung 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk^(talk) 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7), including examination of previous versions of page. --MCB 20:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsey Atkins[edit]

non-notable, unverifiable —Hanuman Das 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Don't see why this is even at AFD. Looks like an A7 to me. Kid who wants to be a star, but has only done a little local theater. Fan-1967 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 as tagged. This version of the article had substantially more content, but nothing asserting any sort of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pickles[edit]

It's only a few sentences about a minor character on Rugrats. The information for Drew Pickles is already on the Rugrats page anyway, so why should there be an article with the same information? This page was originally a vandalism page if you check the history. Aparently some group called the "Barney Bunch" makes fun of this character, such as calling him a homosexual, and involves him in al sorts of juvenile homosexual humor. I wont mention those just for the sake of decency, but if you want to know more, check the history. DietLimeCola 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. I don't think the article can be expanded that much as Drew Pickles was indeed a minor character on the show. Just merge into Rugrats and everything should be fine. Nishkid64 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rugrats Characters. I remember this show from back in the day and I don't think that Drew Pickles was that minor of a character, but still a redirect would be good. The information is already contained on that page. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugrats. Kavadi carrier 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rugrats Characters OR to Rugrats, Drew's not important or notable enough to own his own article. just redirect, it's simpler, quicker, and makes less headache.-ECH3LON 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ECH3LON. Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - he's a semi-major adult character on the show, the article just needs some exspansion. If nothing else can be added, then Delete. --andrew|ellipsed...^Talk 06:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for an article. Merge if appropriate, and Redirect. Herostratus 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not enough to make an article of its own, should just be left in the main rugrats page. Localzuk^(talk) 21:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Pig[edit]

Fails all the criteria as per WP:CORP. The creator of the article (User:David.hughes) is probably Nasty Pig's marketing guy. I'm new to Wikipedia but this seems fairly cut and dried. Lowerarchy 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. Trebor 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hang out to dry~~ Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline G11 speedy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamvertisment Localzuk^(talk) 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie snead[edit]

Non-notable; probably close to SPAM as well (the only relevant Google hits indicates a link to a "local business" providing massages). This could be a CSD, but I went for AFD because there is at least some kind of claim of notability in the article. Schutz 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say it qualifies for speedy. Puffery ("His development of Renaissance Massage was considered a work of art.") is not the same thing as an actual assertion of notability. Fan-1967 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. Kavadi carrier 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per others above. Logophile 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Self-promotion, non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Localzuk^(talk) 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arun L. Naik[edit]

This neurosurgeon doesn't appear to have notability. Only a few Google results exist and those results are to directories and bulletin boards, not to non-trivial coverage. Peter O. (Talk) 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Trebor 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are cited to substantiate the claim that he is "regularly featured on various television programs and newspapers". Kavadi carrier 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Localzuk^(talk) 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Blue[edit]

Biography written by subject of article. Claims to be an actor, but does not show in IMDB, no external reference provides, contested prod. Apparent self promotion[21] HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable, and he has a conflict of interest. Trebor 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So he has been an extra in a couple of shows. Big deal. And also conflict of interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)
Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 00:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:BIO and is self promotion. Localzuk^(talk) 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexualism[edit]

Obscure, unsourced neologism DanB†DanD 21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, nominator here. After a little more search, I've discovered that Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick uses the term in something like this sense, and is most likely its creator. She is notable, but I still don't think the term is. Some of the material from the article should perhaps be merged to her page. DanB†DanD 03:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Hús ö nd 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article seems well-developed. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced, POV, neologism, badly written. Assertion of notability? Fails. There's five reasons. Pick any that you like. It just needs to be deleted quickly. OfficeGirl 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a set of 6 interrelated protologisms. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the entire article is original research. There are no sources anywhere to support any of this. Contrary to this article, a "sexualist" is, in fact, a botanist who classifies plants using Carolus Linnaeus' sexual method (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Delete. Uncle G 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleteI couldn't find any quotes, any references to any articles and I didn't notice any links. I've never heard of the term, it took me a second read even to work out why there was a need for such a term. Moreover, even if the term existed, the article only gives one view - there must be at least some people who think that it is impossible to have equality between those in a normal sexual relatinship and those in an abnormal sexual relationship - however if all these concerns on the article were addressed I'd probably vote to keep. --17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of Wiki notes:

1. Presenting "both sides to every debate" is not really how WP:NPOV works. Lots of debates have only one notable and academically reputable side.

2. An article on a notable subject from a biased perspective is not a good candidate for deletion.

just sayin'. Of course as the nominator I agree that the article should be deleted. But your vote implied misunderstandings of the NPOV policy and of the deletion process.

DanB†DanD 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge-- Google shows some scattered references, so with some citations the term could be included under heterosexism, along with discussion of "heterosexism" vs. "homophobia."
Delete per officegirl Localzuk^(talk) 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and officegirl. Unsourced. POV. Maybe OR. Also, Grand Roi, could you at least try to read the policy? Last time I checked, "looks well developed" wasn't a valid reason to vote keep. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7). — ERcheck (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Drozin[edit]

Disparaging,infantile,etc. StanislavJ 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD A7. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Fan-1967 22:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Roberts[edit]

A hoax, no such player Nuttah68 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, contributor's only edits have been to create this and to add Alec Roberts to a list of people with speech disorders. Kavadi carrier 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might have been speedible as a hoax. humblefool ® 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is Alec Roberts, and despite you all thinking I don't exist, I do, although I have never played at Deportivo Wanka, I have trained with them for a few weeks while I was over in Peru on a trip to enhance my Spanish with college. I am now back training with Aberystwyth Town FC, although I am currently playing local league football with Padarn United. I obviously set this page up myself, as I would be privileged to be on a site such as this, and I notice in the history one of my so called 'mates' has been joking around saying I died. Well I haven't, I'm here, alive and well. Alec Robs 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mr Roberts, assuming you are who you claim to be, our article about you still has to be written based on reliable sources—in other words, not based as much on what you or your friends say about you, as on the words of unrelated people who have been interested enough about you to have written about you before the article was started. A simple search with Google indicates there are no pages that mention your training at either Aberystwyth Town or Padern, and hence the article will be deleted if it remains in its current unverifiable form, barring the addition of aforementioned reliable sources. Regards, Kavadi carrier 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, vanity, no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
Delete, not verifiable, and certainly non-notable. --SunStar Net 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unverifiable. Localzuk^(talk) 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 by Proto. Kavadi carrier 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wine Kone[edit]

Non-notable YouTube user. I don't think this article can ever meet WP:NOR Transfinite 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I do not consider "came to international attention" an assertion of notability. Since YouTube can be accessed worldwide like any other website, anything you upload there can be said to gain "international attention". Tagged as no assertion of notability. Kavadi carrier 00:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article just barely asserts enough notability to miss a speedy but in no respect meets the standard for WP:WEB. Darkspots 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and improve. YouTube is like a media body in itself. Asserting YouTube isnt like a TV station for example is wrong, out out of times. He is notable out of YouTube in MySpace, Flickr and host of other sites. He is mentioned by other credible websites, blogs and news sources. I think it should remain to be seen how much traffic and edits this page recieves. So please untag it for 'speedy' deletion, 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 was delete. W.marsh 15:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham Chorale[edit]

As author, I am not sure if this truly meets the notibility guidelines for a Wikipedia article. I'd like some input from the WP community. Knowing Is Half The Battle 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author. Arbusto 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I didn't nessacarialy state that the article should be deleted, I listed it as a courtesy to the Wikipedia Community, to get a consensus as to if it met notability requirements. Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete does not appear to be notable according to WP:MUSIC. No sources cited other than their website. Kavadi carrier 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Chorales are good and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, non-notable local WP:ORG. And while "[c]horale are good," that hardly seems like a criterion for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe this is one that should be given more time to grow at least? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepFound two cites, added to article. American Record Guide and Wall Street Journal. AMG was not too praising of group, but you don't have to sing perfectly to be notable, you just have to get press coverage. Can only see abstract of Wall Street Journal article which mentions them. But still, that's two independent mainstream articles, so pretty good for a community chorus and seems to meet criteria. Edison 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say that it may just be covered by one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC but only just. I would suggest that they are still non-notable. Localzuk^(talk) 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemod[edit]

A mere computer mod with no assertion of notability besides existing; no magazine mentions or anything like that. Fails WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. Hbdragon88 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of the article and one of the external links, the mod doesn;t have the notability of existing, they gave up on a half-life 1 mod, and the half-life 2 mod is 0% complete and consists on less than a handful of completed models (I think, I have no experience in modding, so I don;t know how to describe what the four external images I saw depict). Aside from not existing, I can find no information present from externally verifiable third-party sources, and personally doubt that such sources exist at this time. -- saberwyn 11:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zshew 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Localzuk^(talk) 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phalanger (compiler)[edit]

I believe this fails to meet WP:SOFTWARE, but another editor removed my {{prod}} tag, so it comes here now. That editor believes I tagged it because it conflicts with Phalanger. to the contrary, I have no problem with articles having identical, though disambiguated, name. Instead, the fact that the articles are co-named is only what attracted my attention to this article. delete. UtherSRG (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE, and chastise deprodder for failure to assume good faith. Kavadi carrier 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearts to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Hello32020 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PHP compiler for .NET is notable. Sanxiyn 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This PHP/MSIL compiler is unique and notable. There are tens of other compilers like Tiny C Compiler and so on too. Are we going to delete all compilers entries in wikipedia ? Tulkolahten 10:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the other articles do not meet the notability guidelines layed out in WP:SOFTWARE, then yes, by all means tag them with {{prod}}. This article does not meet those guidelines, so it should be deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This compiler is officially MS supported for PHP running under .NET The primary goal of the project, released under Microsoft Shared Source Permissive License, is to enable full functionality of existing PHP scripts on .Net without any modification, Microsoft said. This software is notable under The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.Tulkolahten 12:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having MS's support does not make it part of their core software. In fact, it is intended to be integrated into MS Visual Studio. At that point it will be a part of their core software. Right now it isn't.[22] - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's true but does not mean it is lessnotable. Being presented on International .NET conference [23] is notable enough. Tulkolahten 13:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the discussion on WP:SOFTWARE talks about how languages tend to be much more notable then other types of software, and by extension, I believe this would include compilers, especially if they are being actively developed for highly used langages like PHP and MSIL. If this project leads to later compiler and language developments, I believe it is very noteworthy, purely from a research and development standpoint, rather than from a 'highly used' standpoint. If development stops and it loses the interest of research bodies and leads to no later developments, then at that time it should be deleted. I'm very glad I found this article on the wikipedia, since I actively develop in both languages. - TimTillotson 16:25 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE - it is not part of a core package of Microsoft, it is an addon to one. Maybe integrate the information into the .net or php article instead Localzuk^(talk) 21:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nn-bio by Brendanconway. Kavadi carrier 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old man tasty and the lords of the future[edit]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC Charlesknight 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 00:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speed deleted both (along with associated article Landmark Publishing) as nonsense. --Nlu (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Wu, Derny Bullard[edit]

Alleged author, and his alleged lead character. Neither of them seem to actually exist, nor do any of the alleged titles. Fan-1967 23:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Please provide proof that they don't exist that counters the proof I've provided that they do. --Joshpaisant 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was d.e.l.e.t.e., closing a little early due to clear consensus. --Core des at 06:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.E.O.R.G.E[edit]

Seems to be a, "Made-up web forum neologism" according to Omicronpersei8 and I agree. Tjbk tjb 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per fails WP:WEB and the rest. Hello32020 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - JNighthawk 00:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few sentences long, nothing notable, and is pointless. What a waste!

Oh... I still don't know what 'G.E.O.R.G.E.' stands for. - HAARP 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xdenizen 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D.E.L.E.T.E. riana_dzasta 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on a webforum one day. Resolute 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I can think of several more notable ways to refer to a C.D. case. Like "C.D.C.A.S.E." and "W.I.L.L.I.A.M.F.B.U.C.K.L.E.Y." and "U.T.T.E.R.N.O.N.S.E.N.S.E." OfficeGirl 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G.E.O.R.G.E. is a total fake... <Don'tVote>
Delete per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 06:41, 9 November 2006

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