Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 17 October 19 >

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 close; User's first edit was to {{subst:afd}} and then proceed to do these. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia[edit]

Wikipedia text copyright infringement and GFDLvio crime encyclopedia website, and nn website (see alexa 545,071 ranks. WasingtonOOO 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


It's your encyclopedia and your decision to delete the entry for Comixpedia - but please do not misstate or libel Comixpedia. Comixpedia.org's use of entries derived from Wikipedia is in compliance with the GNUFDL as articles on Comixpedia.org are in fact licensed under the GNUFDL. Just as Wikipedia's use of entries derived from Comixpedia.org (regardless of whether you've deleted such articles they have in fact been published on Wikipedia) is allowed under the GNUFDL. You really should delete the reference to copyright infringement here.

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Icon & The Black Roses[edit]

Icon & The Black Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was in progress of creation by me, but it got deleted in a couple of minutes, not allowing me to enhance it... :/ Rotring 21:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

























































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Eadie[edit]

Non-notable high school principle. Was prodded, but prod was removed by an anon Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't really seem to have done anything notible. Article feels like it was written by family member or close friend - SimonLyall 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure she's very nice. Not apparently notable. Principal, incidentally. - Corporal Tunnel 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Seems to be a page with a myriad of copyright violations too. --Ineffable3000 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -Amatulic 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. EVula 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mrs Eadie is a very prestigous Wellingtonian and well known for her work on the use of technology in schools, especially in New Zealand. She deserves to have article on Wikipedia. The school she is currently head of is also one of the most renown private schools in New Zealand. It is also one of the oldest in the country. User:203.97.99.126 (moved from Talk:Gillian Eadie by --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 03:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Keep I was the one who started this article and I am most certainly not a family member or friend! In fact i've never met the person, but really she is quite notable in New zealand educational circles and I don't see a problem with her article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraud2 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment If you can explain how Ms. Eadie passes Wikipedia:Notability (people), I'll be happy to reverse my vote. EVula 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment She does pass Wikipedia's notability standards as she does have published works and is a recognised professional who has conducted groundbreaking research that is widely recognised by a multitude of educational professionals in New Zealand. She has also won awards for her work. She is also academic.
    • Comment And isn't WP:BIO quite clearly a non-exclusionary list of criteria? --Dom 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough, I'd say, within her field. The copyvios and tone can be worked on, as I've done; although, after removing all the unnecessary cruft about the things that aren't what make her notable, there doesn't seem to be all that much left. Still, better than stubs I've seen, and I think it's a fine addition. --Dom 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Attributed and notable within the educational circle. Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -She appears to be notable enough. I don't see any reason why some personal aspects of the article needed to be removed. Way better than some stubs i've seen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jockstrap5000 (talk • contribs) .
New user, five contributions all about Gillian Eadie. Suspected sockpuppet. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writing two papers and winning an award for IT excellence in school don't seem to be indications of notability, unless it can be demonstrated in the article those papers or the award are well-known, per the proposed WP:PROF or anything at WP:BIO. Gotyear 03:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. What is the widely recognized groundbreaking research she's done? The article mentions her speaking at conferences, winning an award and the titles of two works, but it gives me no context from which to understand or verify the importance of her work. Gotyear 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy McNeil[edit]

This appears to be something made up in school one day - note the author of this page (as well as his contribs) and the Google test (most Google hits point to a different person with the same name). Scobell302 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, speedy if you're rouge enough. MER-C 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... I can't really see the need for encyclopedia entries on such fictional characters. Akradecki 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deeeeeelete as above. - Corporal Tunnel 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable unconditionally if it is a hoax or not. --Ineffable3000 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons noted by others above. -Amatulic 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody else. Simply doesn't belong here. EVula 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Yacht Club[edit]

Vanity page for NN-organization DesertSky85451 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject has adiquate notability in yachting and yacht racing sports; article not bad starter. -- Infrogmation 02:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has some interesting info but needs references beyond the web site. --JJay 00:26, 14 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, Yomanganitalk 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does have intresting info, but needs to be wikified and have more sources. Hello32020 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Has sufficient notability.UberCryxic 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above and historical significance. Will probably be expanded if given time. Smeelgova 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the unanimity above. --Daniel Olsen 02:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stubby, but quite notable. Participates in the highest levels of competition of a notable sport (Yacht Racing) thus, by extension, also notable. --Jayron32 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Summers[edit]

I think the first sentence of the article sums it up pretty well - fictional character who appeared in one comic book-based novel (that doesn't even have it's own article) about an alternate future timeline. Non-notable is another way to phrase it. CovenantD 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cringe whenever I see a comic-related AfD, but this one is definately appropriate. I don't like using notability as a reason to delete articles, but in this case it's unsourced and I don't think it'll ever be verifiable. - Lex 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • question What are the thoughts on the book series having a page? I've never heard of it, but I figured that I should ask. FrozenPurpleCube 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't mind that, but also think that the unique characters appearing in it don't need their own article. CovenantD 04:21, 13 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, Yomanganitalk 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed and listed on deletion review. --Coredesat 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad[edit]

AFD retracted. See comment at bottom. -Halo 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Added a new AFD for this article. Despite being based on WP:MUSIC, it does not meet it:

  • Has not had a charted hit on any national music chart.
  • Has not been certified gold in any major country.
  • Has not gone on an international concert tour. Has performed in other states in the US, but does not qualify as a full national tour.
  • Has not released two albums, hasn't released anything on a major or indie label.
  • No reliable cited sources. There is a minor mention in a Phoenix New Times, a local paper, but this is not a major article. The AZNightBuzz link is a blog, therefore not reputatable. The eCollegeTimes has only 50 unique hits on Google, not reputable. The State Press is a bigger article, but is only a small college paper and part of a news page . Does not hit "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". No national press whatsoever
  • No major members from other bands
  • Not a notable style for a city or a local scene of a city. If it were, they would have received more verifiable press mentions.
  • Has not won or been placed a major music award. Won one "Best of Phoenix" award from a local paper, and was nominated for another. These are nowhere near "major".
  • Not performed performed music for a work of media that is notable, or been on radio
  • 172 hits on Google, 126 listeners on last.fm. Does not pass either as notable. Also isn't mentioned on AllMusicGuide.

This does not fit WP:MUSIC, it isn't notable. This is an article that should be deleted.

Previously deleted, but it was readded and the last AFD closed with "No Consensus" despite 11 delete votes (including nom) and 5 keep votes (I believe that lack of consensus is debatable). Please see the last AFD for more discussion about this article.

I'm trying to get a fair AFD _with_ a consensus this time, since I think there's arguments towards Parsssseltongue vote canvassing during the last vote which I would like to avoid this time. Halo 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pars notified everyone who participated in the previous AFD about this one. I personally don't see this as problematic, as it wasn't just keep voters this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep Nomination is of the worst faith. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain my bad faith? You were the one who showed me towards the article in the first place, and as I've previously stated, I believe the previous AFD wasn't done correctly. I firmly believe that this does not meet WP:MUSIC and I've explained this using Wikipedia policies and beyond. -Halo 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the reasons it meets WP:MUSIC were explained on the talk page and cited with reliable sources in the article. You feel they aren't notable sources, but others disagreed. No consensus could be reached, so that's why the article was kept. You are assuming bad faith in the admin who closed the AfD by saying his/her decision was unsound, and you are re-opening an AfD a mere TWO HOURS after one has closed! Has gone on a national concert tour in one large country. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style and the local scene of a city. Has won a major music award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. AJJ has met these requirements. The article needs to be kept and allowed to expand as more coverage takes place. As far as the vote canvassing allegations, I have remedied this by leaving messages on ALL the voters' pages, regardless of "keep" or "delete" vote. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a start - I didn't mention bad faith, and I don't like the fact you said I did, I said that the AFD result of No Concensus was debatable, which it is and I'm trying to establish a firm consensus by renominating, seeing if it does establish it this time. I've explained my reasons why they haven't been mentioned in multiple verifiable articles in my nom. Give it a read. Halo 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pars, accusing someone of bad faith means that you're saying that you think they're doing something for a reason other than wanting to improve the encyclopedia. It's a pretty serious accusation, and a tad baffling when there's no other apparent motivation. Are you absolutely sure this is what you mean? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. If Halo were looking out for the benefit of the encyclopedia, he/she would respect the decision that was made and not open an AfD mere hours later. PT (s-s-s-s) 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No decision was made. No decision exists that needs to be respected. I would personally have put this on WP:DRV as an improper close (consensus existed, that consensus was to delete, admin misjudged) but this works as well. --tjstrf 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also the issue of WP:AGF. A bad-faith nomination is like nominating Bill Cosby as a non-notable performer, or George W. Bush as a non-notable president. Something clearly ridiculous. There's nothing ridiculous or inappropriate about this nomination, and speedy keep doesn't apply when others beside the nominator feel the article should be deleted, regardless of how many times it's been nominated in the past. --NMChico24 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I have shown how AJJ is notable, per WP:MUSIC, and it has been argued out already in an AfD closed mere hours ago, so this is ridiculous and inappropriate. PT (s-s-s-s) 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obscure band, local interest only. —Chowbok 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, despite a yeoman's effort on the part of Pars to try and do everything that can be done. There just isn't the material here to build an article with the proper foundation of sources, and that's why we have notability standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a joke? No, seriously. This just finished an AfD this afternoon. Strong keep if not speedy keep #6. Meets WP:MUSIC for media attention at the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have missed the "non-trivial" in "non-trivial published works," in WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a disagreement between editors as to what constitutes "trivial" and not here. That's why there was a "no consensus," that's why it defaulted to "keep," and that's why the decision should be respected, and the article should be allowed time to expand. PT (s-s-s-s) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a joke. I also don't understand what you mean by Wikipedia:Speedy keep? #6 is "The article is currently linked to on the Main Page. Please wait until it is not there before starting a deletion discussion."? If you mean 5, I've never nominated this article before, so I'm not sure how that applies either. Halo 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Has won local contests and was featured in our local alternative newspaper. Good for a non-notable myspace band, but a non-notable myspace band nonetheless. The band can check back in a few years when they've hit the charts. --NMChico24 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "MySpace band." And who in this AfD are you asking to check back in after hitting the charts when you say "you"? PT (s-s-s-s) 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified per your request  :) --NMChico24 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Even if this was closed 2 hours ago, it's still not a notable group. I don't believe there's a statuatory time limit on AfD's of "no consensus" anyway. --tjstrf 01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the AfD just failed...why is this being nominated again? The article was deemed worthy earlier, so why would it be deleted now when improvement work has been done to it? How is the article supposed to meet your standards if you are just going to renominate immediatley after the AfD fails? Seems notable enough for me... Wikipediarules2221 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which Speedy criteria does it fulfill? It got a "No Consensus" vote, not a keep vote - there is a big difference between the two. One means that it belongs, one means that it wasn't clear cut enough to decide, hence the re-AFD Halo 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allow more time before new AfD please.--Húsönd 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD should actually be closed as soon as possible. There's no reason to believe that there'll be more consensus now than a few hours ago.--Húsönd 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I voted delete in the original 'articles for deletion' debate, but I am voting keep, due to the fact that the previous nomination ended merely hours before the opening of this one. If you want to obtain another consensus on the issue, then it would be more prudent to give the article some more time before doing so, Give the article and band in question at least a couple of months to see if it can satisfy the WP:BAND guidelines. --Auger Martel 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the nominator please retract nomination and relist on WP:DRV[edit]

I believe it would be for the best that this be disputed via drv as an improper no consensus close, rather than psuedo-relisted as a new debate immediately after the old one. Any objections? --tjstrf 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was flagged as copyvio from [2]. Yep, it's straight off their website. MER-C 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School One[edit]

Currently a POV original research. Reads like a private school ad designed to attract new students. Notability of the institution is not asserted. Húsönd 00:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reads like an advert, contains information that should be on the official site or a student handbook, notability not established. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It seems that people are learning how to mimic the appearance of a WP article in order to keep theirs around longer. N Shar 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That kind of content belongs on your own website, not here. --JaimeLesMaths 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a 30+ year-old private, accredited High School. Consensus expressed other places on Wikipedia seems to indicate that high schools are inherently notable. As a (+) for this one, it DOES have a notably different approach to curriculum. As a (-), it only has about 90 students. The article is crappy; but poor writing, even non-NPOV writing, is NOT a criteria for deletion. Deletion should be based on the merits of the SUBJECT, not of the writing in the article. This one seems to barely meet baseline notablity requirements. --Jayron32 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a copyvio, however, is a reason for deletion. MER-C 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:20Z

Katrina refrigerator[edit]

Katrina refrigerator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Only linked from one other article. Possibly original research. Previous nomintion. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm very surprised this survived the previous nomination - many of the "keep" comments simply said "it's interesting." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source is an excellent example of why wikipedia demands multiple sources. The Times might publish a human interest story about a poor woman who needs surgery, as part of a larger theme of health care costs and poverty etc. This doesn't mean that specific woman should be the topic of a wikipedia article. That's essentially what the source for Katrina refrigerator is.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at the previous nomination, most of the comments didn't say simply "it's interesting"; one contributor happened to say "it's an interesting and verifiable phenomenon" (my bold text), which doesn't constitute a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The large collection of external links is testament to multiple non-trivial news coverage - not just a single human-interest article - and a book about the topic is even cited. As such, the phrase doesn't fail WP:NEO, nor does the article fail WP:V. Walton monarchist89 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if those external links could be used as references. I don't consider external links as such unless they're cited in the text, although I guess that might not be a common feeling.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially going to say "delete", but after further consideration, I think this article describes a notable cultural phenomenon created as a direct result of a major historical event. It was covered by NPR and other news outlets. Cultural anthropologists love this sort of thing, and I think it deserves WP inclusion at least as much as, say, a minor character from some 1980s Nintendo games. Dppowell 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. Verifiable and discussed in print and national media, and now as familiar a cultural phenomena in the central Gulf Coast as king cake.
  • Delete WP:OR ffm yes? 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles that mention refrigerators are not all about the "temporary folk art" aspect, and something being a cute feature in a newspaper does not always mean it is encyclopedic. We don't need articles on "Katrina dead dogs" or "Katrina moldy carpet" "Katrina couches" or "Katrina cars" which would also be found in the aftermath of a flood. Inkpaduta 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appears to be verifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage in NYT[3], Bergen Record (behind paywall; article won award), Baton Rouge Advocate in addition to sources in article. There seem to be other objects than fridges involved in some of these, but I'm not sure what a better name would be other than something like Katrina debris art. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is actually a really interesting article, which of course (in and of itself) is not sufficient to save it from deletion. However, there seem to be plenty of sources (such as those cited by Dhartung and others) that would establish the notability of this phenomenon. I also note that Infrogmation has beefed up the content of this article since the AfD was posted to reference some of these sources. Seventypercent 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reasoning hasn't changed since the first AfD. Dhartung's references only reinforce my position. Caknuck 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and notable enough for me. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Varisco book helps a lot and would almost do it on its own. Adding Dhartung's sources, quite sound, convinces me this is notable. — coelacan talk — 12:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject does meet standards for verifiability, but remove any and all original research. Example: [4] Yamaguchi先生 08:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kollwitz[edit]

Non-notable musician: only Google hits are promotional pages, no entry in AMG. Spammy page created by apparent relative. —Chowbok 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Where does it say that the page was written by a relative? The note at the bottom seems to indicate to me that the relative created HIS website, not necessarily the article here. After double-checking my own idiocy and looking at the logs, it indeed seems to have been written by a relative. Delete. --Hemlock Martinis 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Article was written by a relative, which qualifies it as an autobiography. I'll grant that being an early and well-known Chapman Stick player is an assertion of notability, but the absence of a discography tells me he's nowhere near notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC -- I think -- because no independent sources are provided to back up the asserted concert tour, and discography is minimal. N Shar 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he's not notable enough to be a "Featured Artist" on stick.com, then probably doesn't pass WP:NN. Caknuck 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Why not merge with the article on Chapman Stick, seems notable enough - if his the best? The Crying Orc 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. There are so many musicians in the world. - Corporal Tunnel 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add a one-sentence expansion to the entry in the list of musicians in the Chapman stick article. -Amatulic 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gender-neutral pronoun. --Coredesat 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S/he[edit]

Incomplete nomination by 161.142.24.130 (talk · contribs). The reason given on the talk page was: "Listed as for deletion as there are no references and this term is nothing but an incorrect use of a slash to indicate alternation. Correctly it should be he/she, she/he. A case could be made for s'/he but it would be very weak." --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of hacker and cracker groups[edit]

A hacker group category exists that serves the same purpose. A list is not needed. --- RockMFR 01:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No need to make a list when a category will work. --Hemlock Martinis 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RockMFR. - SpLoT 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to the category, as groups which aren't notable enough to merit an article probably shouldn't be recognized in a list anyway. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and no added value.-- danntm T C 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed. redundant. Resorb 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant page LW77 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Little Rascal[edit]

Hoax article: juvenile nonsense about a non-existent TV series Psychonaut3000 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foreign relations of Iran. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's Islamic foreign policy[edit]

The whole concept for this article is flawed and violates NPOV. The title is misleading; it does not examine Iran's foreign policy (Foreign relations of Iran already does that). Instead, it alleges that Iran has created a religious police force in Iraq. There are no corroborating references, and all references listed are quotes from the Quran and speeches by Iranian leaders. No alternative viewpoints are presented, and there is no better content possible under this title or its previous title, "Basij" in Iraq. It also violates the no original research policy. LittleDantalk 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep I agree that the article was lousy at its inception. However, it has evolved and been revamped. It isn't excellent yet promising.--Patchouli 01:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some redirects to the page need deletions.--Patchouli 02:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would need to be taken to WP:RFD and not here. --70.48.174.114 02:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Still has POV problems but it can probably be fixed eventually. --N Shar 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The information is notable but does NOT warrant a separate article. The name is redundant to Foreign relations of Iran and the article should be merged with THAT article and this name redirected. --Jayron32 05:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Iran. It's not quite a POV fork, but is close, and definitely doesn't merit a separate article at this point. TheronJ 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm not sure if this is protocol for me to be commenting on my own deletion proposal, but I guess it would make more sense to make it a redirect to Foreign relations of Iran. Still I don't think there's any useful, non-OR to be used in that article. LittleDantalk 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per above. Davewild 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - the article just needs a good cleanup. --Ineffable3000 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect POV fork article with poor title. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if cleaned up really well, would be redundant with the existing foreign relations page Bwithh 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect - There is the potential for an article here but the current version is a hopeless mess. Merge anything salvageable into Foreign relations of Iran. --Richard 05:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of POV, gives off an anti Islamic tone, messy, horribly worded.Khosrow II 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Khosrow - Marmoulak 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Imperial personnel[edit]

Given the existence of the far superior List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters and Category:Star Wars Imperial characters, I just don't see the need for this list, which gives virtually no description of any characters. BryanG(talk) 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Deckiller 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect or assuming this information is too unreliable, or too minor just Redirect . FrozenPurpleCube 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and transwiki to Wookiepedia is also a possibility. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delusions Of Grandeur[edit]

Band without an album release. Not notable enough for article. Delete exolon 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Che Nuevara 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find reliable sources to assert notability. Apparently there used to be another band with the very same name in the 90's, but it's unrelated. By the way, this article used to be a redirect to Delusion, but I think it's better delete rather than restore redirect.--Húsönd 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a google search turns up no less than 3 bands with this name on the first page, and NONE of them are this band. If you aren't even the most popular band with your name, you probably don't rate. Also, allmusic.com turns up a band called Delusions of Grandeur. The problem is a) it's not a notable band, with a single non-wide release CD and b) IT'S ALSO NOT THIS BAND. No notability, so delete... --Jayron32 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC Kevin 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band should perhaps return when they have done something meaningful until then delete, but keep up the 'Delusions Of Grandeur' guys. --The Crying Orc 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted, hoax recreate. The games it referred to haven't even been announced. GarrettTalk 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Dandia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is unsourced speculation about a character who may appear in upcoming video games. This article was deleted via prod once before but then recreated, so I'm sending it through AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC

  • Strong Delete Not only is this crystal balling, it's a clear hoax, as there is NO information about this character, and a VERY poorly written article. Wildthing61476 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reluctant to label it a hoax. Really, based on the writing, it feels closer to something made up at school one day. Not that it makes it any more encyclopedic, though. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand that, but unlike a new term or a game made up at school one day, that claims to be fact on an established game series, which to me is a blatant hoax. (Semantics and all that) Wildthing61476 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Why exactly is this not speediable under recreation? Also important to note that the creator of the article was blocked once for inserting dubious material and recreated the article with a note that read: "Please leave this page open. Do not deleted this whole page or you can be blocked by editing Wikipedia Not Michelle 3801, Michelle 7802, Michelle 4903, and Michelle 1004". Pascal.Tesson 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not speedyable because it wasn't deleted via AfD. It was deleted via WP:PROD, and recreating an article that was deleted through the PROD process is treated the same as a contested PROD: the next step in the process is to propose deletion at AfD, which I did. If it is deleted as a result of this AfD, and if it is then recreated, then it is a speedy candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Makes sense. Note however that this particular article needs to go asap as it seems to be a clear hoax by a return vandal/prankster and damages the reputation of Wikipedia as the link provided below by N Shar shows. Pascal.Tesson 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately speedy delete A4 only applies if the article has gone through AfD. However, this article is clearly unsourced and a likely hoax. eaolson 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above and per this discussion, which is the ONLY google hit outside of WP+mirrors. --N Shar 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Michelle3801 has been gaming the system with frequent contributions of hoax information, mostly related to Princess Daisy, often through sockpuppets, including articles such as this. It is a shame that so much process is spent dealing with what, to me, is essentially vandalism. Dancter 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fictional character. And of the two games listed as her appearing in: one isn't even officially in dvelopment (Mario Kart Wii) and the other we know nothing except that it's in development (Mario Party 8). TJ Spyke 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable. --Ineffable3000 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it for things made up. Further, articles must have verfiable content not composed of original research. Don't forget that articles should be written in an encyclopedic manner consistent without acceptable standards of style. Just wanted to see how many policies/guidelines/essays I can link to in my justification.-- danntm T C 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a crystallized hoax. The article is also very poorly written, and looks like something someone made up in school one day. --Coredesat 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Speedy Delete - Simply apalling article. The Kinslayer 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7--Konst.ableTalk 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting of a House[edit]

Play that has only been performed at a middle school. No assertion of significance. No sources. Deprodded by anon. eaolson 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7, no notability whatsoever.--Húsönd 03:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Husond. Gdo01 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7. No assertion of notability; no possibility of notability even. --N Shar 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure this would fall under A7, as the article is about a performance and not the people who performed in it (which would be {{db-group}}). --Coredesat 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 10:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne University Labor Club[edit]

Self promoting, unencyclopaediac material, unverifiable, not notable. Overall factions are dealt with in National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia. Individual clubs are not notable, and unless we want wikipedia to turn into a Soapbox for every faction/faction/student politician in existence. Perhaps information on this club should be merged into the Student Unity page, and therefore into the whole structure about student politics in Australia. There is no reason why this, or any other campus club, should have a wiki presence. They have their own websites that can be linked from the faction they support or are part of Petrol pyro 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per non which is well stated. Could be a merge to the university entry at best.TheRanger 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be a long standing club of the left and I have found some sources. This from a review of "Free Radicals: On the Left in Postwar Melbourne" from a review in the Australian in 2003. "Turner and Gott were well-established leaders of the Left when I began my course in pure history and all of us were keen supporters of the lively student Labour Club. In this heyday of the Left, the club probably commanded some 800 members out of a total student enrolment of 8000. Ostensibly, the club was broad church -- hospitable to anyone left of centre. Many belonged also to the Student Christian Movement." A Google News Archive finds a reference in a biography of Gott see [5] Google Scholar comes up with further references see [6]. It seems to have been a notable organisation in postwar Melbourne politicl life. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Can someone check whether any notable politicians or other figures were members of this club? (JROBBO 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete If this club is such a notable body in postwar Australian politics, the page should reflect this and not simply be a promotional page for the body. Hence controversies, and somewhat more of the wider history of the club should be on the page. This page just promotes the club today and provides no historical background. I also don't feel that a single mention in an article about a famous activist makes something noteworthy; a current google news serach finds nothing. A google web search [7] lists the wiki article as number two. Other hits involve other user contributed pages such as answers.com, with some having their neutrality disputed. At best it this is a dubious inclusion that probably should be brought into the Melbourne University Student Union page, at worst a conceited attempt by a group at self promotion through wiki abuse. --Petrol pyro 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above. MER-C 11:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Petrol Pyro. Montco 01:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Petrol Pyro. --AAA! 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i will make edits to make it more appropriate and less promotional 210.15.213.194 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or complete rewrite. There is little evidence of club history on the current page, unlike the Melbourne University ALP Club (which seems dubious as well, and probably warrents attention). The current page is simply promotional of the club today.--130.194.13.106 05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "history" referred to above seems to that of the older Melbourne University ALP Club, assuming that is the older one. Given the historical content on the [Melbourne University ALP Club]] wiki page, it would seem this is only promotional. This is not to say that the other club page should be cleaned up and made NPOV compliant, but this one has no redeeming value it seems. --Mcjaf

{

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador Guayaquil South Mission[edit]

wiki is not a history source for every mission of the church of jesus christ of LDS delete DesertSky85451 02:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following along with this:
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 03:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add a references section. Give some time to allow for expansion. Smeelgova 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Akradecki 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and other articles on the same topic. Pavel Vozenilek 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical development of physical cosmology[edit]

This page is just a random collection of POV biographies. If any parts are thought to be salvagable, they should be merged with their individual biography pages. GoodSamaritan 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Discussion[edit]

*Weak keep It needs a lot more work, but is not particularly POV. BTW, Good Samaritan, it is not good form to nominate, then vote of an AFD. --Michael Johnson 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) now Delete based on the debate below, it is obvious this article ain't going anywhere. --Michael Johnson 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article does not represent current scholarship on the subject. It was originally written at Biblical cosmology with the specific intention of bashing religion. Notice how the text focuses only in instances of perceived conflict between religion and science, while saying little regarding the actual scientific advancements... ... ... Before voting, editors should be aware that many 19th century ideas related with the conflict thesis are still popular among a general audience (which includes most WP editors), but are not supported anymore among historians of science. Please check the conflict thesis article if you can. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The section about Giordano Bruno is a good example of the "POVness" of the article. Bruno gave no real contribution to the "historical development of physical cosmology", since his work wasn't scientific at all. I think he has a section devoted to him only because of his problems with the church. Moreover, the text does not mention that when Bruno was burned at the stake "there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy". It is also not mentioned that many believe his condemnation actually "had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." (see source: *here*). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was about the implications of Biblical cosmology, not "actual scientific advancements". Bruno was a "natural philosopher" and not a scientist; the scientific method was not developed until centuries after Bruno's gruesome execution. The original contributor stated these points, but they were segregated when these paragraphs were removed to this article. The original contributor also stated that Bruno championed "free speech", but never stated specifically why Bruno was executed. If you have a reference stating that Bruno was instead burned alive as an advocate of free speech, you should have added the reference instead of sweeping multiple sections under the rug. --DixiePixie 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo and Copernicus were the true "natural philosophers" of the time, not Bruno. But you are right in pointing that, as I also mentioned, the text was originally related with the "Biblical cosmology" article. Your reply was important because I forgot to consider this when I wrote one phrase above (now stroked). But it doesn't change the problematic bias of the text, a bias that becomes clearer when those sections are inserted on more proper articles for them. Notice that one subsection of the text from "Biblical cosmology" was inserted in the article "Relationship between religion and science" (instead of moved here), and the text immediately brought POV concerns on that page too - see *here*. Even after changes from the editors of that page to reduce the bias, the POV tag is still above that section of the article. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who appointed you to designate the true "natural philosophers" of history? Who appointed you to designate "bad scholarship" as you claimed in your revert war at Biblical cosmology? These are simply your biased POV's. We would all probably agree that Bruno left little, if any, evidence of adhering to the scientific method that was developed centuries after his death, but that only precludes him from being considered a "scientist" by the more modern definition. We would all probably agree that Bruno's published work was not nearly as significant as that provided by the long careers of Galileo and Copernicus, but that does not preclude him from being considered a "natural philosopher". It is worth repeating that I "never stated specifically why Bruno was executed". The more in depth references I read stated that no conclusion could be certain about the charges upon which Bruno was convicted due to a lack of primary source material from the convicting (religious) court. Regardless of the specific reason, I believe that, just like the scientific method, Bruno's pleas for freedom of speech are actually more relevant to scientific advancement than Bruno's brilliant extension of Copernican concepts. There was no need to strike through your "problems with the church" comment. His fiery demise is exactly what earned Bruno's inclusion in Biblical cosmology. As for your latter remarks about where my contributions belong and "bias", please read my "vote" below. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section about Bruno belongs neither here nor in the original article, but for different reasons. An article about "Biblical cosmology" is simply not the place for a collection of biographies about historical figures. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comment. This article was not created to be useful to anyone. These paragraphs are actually a subset of paragraphs torn away from Biblical cosmology where they were used to offer historical support for specific Biblical interpretations. They were placed here without a meaningful category so that few would ever see them. Once these supporting paragraphs were safely exiled, the original article predictably fell apart into its current form at the hands of less experienced editors. This "divide and conquer" strategy employed by ScienceApologist, Leinad-Z, and Dragons_flight is simply shameful. --DixiePixie 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that the author and defender of the text left Wikipedia, there is little point in keeping it. A merge would fail sooner or later given the type of editors it has attracted. --DixiePixie 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These sections were initially moved to Cosmology by ScienceApologist because they did no fit the original article. But the text was also regarded as off-topic by the editors of the Cosmology article, so this new article was created (by Dragons_flight) to accommodate it. Your comment above is a blatant assumption of bad faith toward experienced WP editors. No more conspiracy theories, please. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to accuse Dragons_flight of involvement in the "divide and conquer" strategy used on Biblical cosmology; instead, see my vote below. As for the other two... Given their past contributions and that they are such "experienced WP editors", it is hard for me to accept that other scenarios are likely. They engaged in a revert war to scatter the historical sections of Biblical cosmology to places where they were off topic, non-cohesive, and taken out of context to a degree that even confused Leinad-Z; see his strike-through above. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbeiter, as I just found out, DixiePixie and YOU seem to be one and the same person. I also noticed that the whole so-called "revert war" you mention all the time appears to have been promoted by you using another sock puppet (Witch-King) to revert ScienceApologist’s move. After realizing these things, I feel little need to reply to your accusations. Maybe you should look in a mirror to see who is really using "shameful strategies" around here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite an accusation. I would like to see you present your "evidence". Is it all circumstantial speculation? Do you feel the accusation is enough to justify such a claim? You should note that everything I claimed about you is backed up through article histories available to everyone. I think you're just floating this idea to distract readers from your behavior. --Arbeiter 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other users can easily check to see if they agree with me by reading the edit history of Arbeiter, DixiePixie, and Witch-King. I don't need to distract readers from anything, since your conspiracy theory is completely bogus. My engagement in what you like to say was "my" "revert war", for example, was limited to a single edit. And I don’t know how you can assume that ScienceApologist decided to move your text as some kind of evil scheme to protect religion, the bible, whatever... As a materialist, (read his user page), I really don’t think he would be inclined to defend any sort of biblical cosmology. Also, as his name implies, he does apologetics in favor of science; if anything, it can be said that he devotes his time in Wikipedia to defend science against religion, precisely the opposite of what you seems to be thinking.
There were basically two problems with those sections you wrote on Biblical cosmology: (1) they were off-topic regarding the original article, (2) they were (and are) POV. Personally, I doubt ScienceApologist was much concerned with problem number 2, but he rightly noticed problem number 1 and moved the sections that did not belong there accordingly. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the call to attention at the top of the page --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you had no real rebuttal, after all. You didn't know very obvious facts about ScienceApologist, it is as if you haven't even take the time to carefully read our userpages, let alone our edit history, before claiming that "it is hard for me to accept that other scenarios are likely.". Well, other scenarios were likely. Your edits were moved here because they did not fit the original article, not because of some conspiracy. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given your convoluted conspiracy theories above, are you actually complaining about conspiracy theories? In case you didn't catch it, Arbeiter has left Wikipedia. It might be safe to stop waiting for Arbeiter's rebuttal. --DixiePixie 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- next to no resemblance to the unwritten article which is needed on the subject, but it may be a start if someone picks it up. --Pjacobi 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think it is easier to inspire someone to write an article from scratch which is obviously lacking rather than try and figure out whether it is worth their time to hobble out decent text from an inherently flawed article. (If someone deleted the Manhattan Project article I am willing to wager that there'd be a better article there within two weeks than there has been for a year.) Just my two cents on this issue. --Fastfission 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am the author of this text. It appears to me that nobody was actually interested in creating this article. Instead, Dragons_flight exiled the text here because it did not fit where ScienceApologist moved it. The intention of this text was to "offer historical support for specific Biblical interpretations" at Biblical_cosmology. The supported Biblical interpretations served as a counter-balance to the Biblical interpretations there claiming the Bible foretold the big bang theory. I would have written this text differently for other subjects, such as the Historical development of physical cosmology. --Arbeiter 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete scrap and rewrite --The page physical cosmology is large enough to warrent not including all the details of the historical development. Thus I should like to think that there would be good reason to keep this article as s long as the time and interest of those better aquainted with the history of science were willing to help improve it. As a concept, it's definately interesting and worthy of encyclopedic attention. As an article it needs work. --Homecomputer 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Edit.. I agree with Andrew C, probably easier to completely scrap and create entirely new.--Homecomputer∴Peace 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Home Computer that the topic is notable, but the arguments above have convinced me that the text does not match the topic. We need to start from scratch, and I deleting for the time being is the best way to go (as opposed to removing most of the content to create a stub). If we had peopel committed to upgrading this article, then I'd support their work, but as is, I don't believe we can keep this article.--Andrew c 04:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.. now that I think about it it's probably easier to scrap and rewrite. --Homecomputer∴Peace 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything salvagable here. A real history of physical cosmology could be an interesting article but it would require taking quite a different approach (starting before Copernicus, for one thing, and covering a much wider range of views, for another, to say nothing of better usage of secondary sources). --Fastfission 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely out of place sock puppet discussion[edit]

Attention: I now believe that user:DixiePixie is actually user:Arbeiter disguised in a sock puppet account. Arbeiter was the original creator of the text that we are currently evaluating. DixiePixie is a new account whose main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be agreeing with Arbeiter's POV. "Both" are participating in this discussion. (The account user:Witch-King may be an even clearer example of Sock puppetry by Arbeiter, but he didn't show up yet in this specific discussion.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Update: Wow... OMG... is it possible that even GoodSamaritan is also a sockpuppet? Arbeiter accused GoodSamaritan of being MY sockpuppet bellow... And, looking at GoodSamaritan's edit history for the first time, he certainly seems to behave like a sockpuppet!! At first I was in shock and didn’t know what to think, but then I realized: what if GoodSamaritan, (which is a new account made after the text by Arbeiter was moved against his will for this article), was created to be some kind of straw man sock puppet for Arbeiter? What if this yet-another-sockpuppet is also part of Arbeiter's plan to delete the current article and merge its content back to the original page? So far, it is the most logical conclusion that I could reach. It is either that or I'm being completely paranoid with this whole sockpuppet issue. There are way too many apparent socks hanging around here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite an accusation. I would like to see you present your "evidence". Is it all circumstantial speculation? Do you feel the accusation is enough to justify such a claim? You should note that everything I claimed about you is backed up through article histories available to everyone. I think you're just floating this idea to distract readers from your behavior as discussed below. --Arbeiter 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both sockpuppets were made after your controversial edits to Biblical cosmology and Biblical literalism. You barely changed the user page when you made DixiePixie. Both sockpuppets hold your sacreligious POVs. Both sockpuppets defended your articles that only its mother could love. All three accounts block vote together. Its pretty obvious. --GoodSamaritan 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the approach is just a bit more elegant, (see the talk pages): it seems that Arbeiter wants us to believe that he and these "new users" that came out of nowhere to agree with him in polemic issues are becoming great friends after a few edits together. Following that line, Arbeiter allegedly became so impressed by DixiePixie’s user page that he "copied" it [8]... Arbeiter also welcomed Wich-King [9] and took the liberty to edit Witch's userpage [10] ("to protect him from WP 'oppressive' rules", as was stated in the welcome message"). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbeiter, other users can easily check to see if they agree with me (by reading the edit history of "Arbeiter", "DixiePixie", and "Witch-King", as user GoodSamaritan just did update: as explained in the update of my 1st post, GoodSamaritan may actually be Arbeiter's straw man sock puppet). And I don't need to "distract" readers from anything, since your conspiracy theory is completely bogus (see my complete reply when you repeat the same questions in the debate above.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the last couple of months, there were ~3000 new users/day that came out of nowhere. I want you to understand that they are all my sockpuppets. Everyone you ever clash with will be my sockpuppet. In fact, you are my straw puppet... Instead of saying "the approach is just a bit more elegant", might you mean "This is not likely, since it actually refutes User:GoodSamaritan's accusation"? There is nothing wrong with reaching out to new users, or offering sympathetically worded corrections according to the guidelines. User:GRBerry and User:HomeComputer did it for me. In turn, I did it for DixiePixie, Freddulany, and Witch-King. You should try it; it's good to be friendly sometimes. It doesn't indicate an ever-widening sock puppet ring. --Arbeiter 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, notice that I haven't yet presented the stronger reasons that make me think Wich-King and DixiePixie are your sockpuppets, I'm saving this information for latter (i.e. for if/when a more official WP investigation happens, or at least when an administrator steps in this discussion.). You are right in saying that GoodSamaritan's weak version of the sock puppetry accusation was refuted by you. From the moment I read Goodsamaritan's reply, it was obvious to me that it was an incomplete response that you were more than prepared to rebut. So, I stepped forward to supplement his post by noting that you were being more astute than GoodSamaritan seemed to assume. (PS.: Considering that I now think GoodSamaritan may actually be your straw man sock puppet, It's no wonder why his view was so easy to rebut in the first place.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secret evidence!!! Why not just tell us to trust that you are always correct? He rebutted your accusations just as easily. Are you, in fact, Arbeiter's straw puppet? --DixiePixie 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think others should evaluate whole the situation and make their own minds about it. No one should trust in my "secret evidence" yet, since I haven’t presented it. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attention: I now believe that GoodSamaritan is actually Leinad-Z disguised in a sock puppet account. Leinad-Z and ScienceApologist teamed-up to weaken Biblical_literalism, and then GoodSamaritan delivered the blow that completely reversed the article's meaning. A similar one-two punch tactic was also used by Leinad-Z & co. to completely reverse the meaning of Dedication to Pope Paul III. This is especially telling since a link to "Dedication to Pope Paul III" sat very uncomfortably next to Leinad-Z's nearly opposite statement here. GoodSamaritan is a new account whose main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be agreeing with Leinad-Z's POV and acting as a bad hand account. "Both" are participating in this discussion. (Other accounts also appear to be good examples of Sock puppetry by Leinad-Z, but they have not yet surfaced in this specific discussion.) Leinad-Z & co. block voted twice in this discussion page alone (early support for deletion + sockpuppet allegations). It seems that Leinad-Z wants us to believe that a "new user" came out of nowhere to agree with him in polemic issues including the account's first two edits. Following that line, after a few edits together, Leinad-Z allegedly became so impressed with yet another sockpuppet account as an "editor and a WP administrator" that Leinad-Z went straight to him for "advice, and maybe more direct assistance" instead of going through an established process. Leinad-Z & co. also vigorously defend yet another sockpuppet account, ScienceApologist. On this page, Leinad-Z even explains ScienceApologist's motivations for co-trashing Biblical cosmology. Leinad, you're not supposed to let it slip out that you're privy to your sockpuppet's motivations. How can you look in the mirror, Leinad-Z & co.? --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(*I just want to make clear for a more distracted reader that Arbeiter intended the above comments as a mock argument. For example: he pretended to accuse both an editor with more that 10,000 edits and a wikipedia administrator of being sockpuppets... Also, GoodSamaritan never participated in any edit or discussion at Biblical literalism). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would not necessarily have to be a mock argument if you actually are "Leinad-Z & co." instead of one individual. --DixiePixie 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look familiar? I almost admire the subtle, rhetorical tactics Leinad-Z employed, but we should see through them and understand that such speculation can be employed without merit. Obviously, all these accounts couldn't be one person, but it made a suspicious-looking case for it anyway. That said, while preparing the mock argument above, I noticed a couple amazingly coincidental edits that were hard to swallow. Now, I'm not sure whether Leinad-Z was offering his accusations as a smoke screen or actually shifting the spotlight to hide questionable behavior. With the mock argument in mind, anybody with the time should compare GoodSamaritan's first two edits with Leinad-Z's edits of the same articles to see how one article relates to this edit by Leinad-Z. I was involved with all three places at some point. My low tolerance for questionable behavior was surpassed long ago at Wikipedia. As some of you now know from my past edits, it is my desire to wash my hands of Wikipedia, and so this will be a parting shot. For everyone, I hope something worthwhile arises from the wreckage. --Arbeiter 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbeiter, there are several paradoxes that arise if one wants to consider GoodSamaritan as my sockpuppet. For example: the first edit by GoodSamaritan, the one used as "evidence" that he may be my sock, seems to be very odd behavior from "Leinad-Z & co". Why? Because the link you provided above makes clear that I had a sourced quotation by two historians of science that would very easily allow the modification of your biased text. It makes no sense to think that, instead of taking the easy and policy-approved route for changing that article, I would go through the trouble of creating a sockpuppet account and its elaborated userpage to edit it. BTW, as you very well know, much before GoodSamarintan's first edit I had already clearly told you that I would need to change the article's POV problems eventually. However, the most noticeable problem with your new theory may be that bringing the very issue of sockpuppetry (as I did at the start of this discussion) would be the most stupid thing to do if I were trying to hide a sockpuppet myself. Gosh, I was even trying to bring the current discussion to the attention of administrators, (again an incredibly stupid thing to do if what you say was in fact true). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you allegedly did come back "to change the article's POV problems" in the guise of a sock puppet. Also, your own arguments here (including the one you use as the "most noticeable problem with [the sock puppet] theory") apply equally for your accusations of GoodSamaritan being Arbeiter's sock puppet. Going to a WP administrator with which you share an edit history (and therefore possible association) is also suspicious behavior. --DixiePixie 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't apply "equally" at all. Arbeirter was trying to defend himself from suspicion of sockpuppetry and needed something to try even out the discussion on the topic. On the other hand, I had no reason to put my alleged sock under the spotlight. All the time, I was perfectly aware that the argumentation you "both" were making toward me and ScienceApologist was completely flawed. Read again the deletion discussion and you’ll see that, as soon as Arbeirter tried to imply that I was denouncing sockpuppetry as a "rhetorical strategy" to hide my "shameful behavior", I wrote a key reply showing the allegations were unfounded. Until now, no one was able to rebut. Also, any attempt of deleting this article and merging its content back from were it was removed would necessarily be much harder than a simple NPOV edit. Especially because the move would be against the commonsense notion that articles should stay their respective topics. The fact is that I needed no socks, while Arbeirter did need them if he wanted to see his text back where he edited. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It does apply equally since your were trying to defend yourself against suspicion of misbehavior in the form of a "divide and conquer" tactic. "Until now" meaning that I recently provided its rebuttal? Sorry. I would have offered the rebuttal earlier if you had invited me to defend myself against your accusations, but instead you simply started accusing the new users who ever sided with Arbeiter without even leaving them notice of your accusations. You were here arguing with yourself. HomeComputer stopped by to ask you to take it elsewhere, but you kept arguing with yourself anyway. I guess you have a hard time feeling lonely. Again, your alleged motivation is pure speculation and even contradictory. Arbeiter needed no socks for this purpose, because Arbeiter never even asked for a merger; he voted to "delete". In fact, nobody has voted for a "merge", and this accusation taints the discussion so that fewer will have the courage to vote that way. (They might just get themselves added to your ever-widening sock puppet allegations.) Again, questionable tactics on your part. --DixiePixie 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously claiming that the note you "recently provided" is a rebuttal? Your comment there is only saying that I shouldn’t complain about the baseless accusations you were making toward me and ScienceApologist. It makes nothing to change the fact that you were completely wrong. Again, the suspicion of misbehavior was bogus, I knew exactly how to respond to that, and I did so effectively in the discussion above. It was soon after that key comment (when I mention that ScienceApologist is a materialist) that Arbeiter made the desperate accusation that I was the one using a sockpuppet; it seems that he really didn't know how to reply to that, (and so does you). Also, Dixiepixie, the edit summary of your own first edit in this page reads: “Merge back to its orginal location” [11] So, please stop pretending that there was no intention to move the text back to the original article. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 00:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only repeated it. You were the one who said, "Until now, no one was able to rebut." Until now here means the opposite recently happened. With the phrase, until now, you led me to believe that I had already provided the rebuttal, and so I did not even look for this reply. Looking for it now, I think you're either asking me to defend a quote made by Arbeiter or defend the text written by Arbeiter. In case you didn't catch it, Arbeiter left Wikipedia at 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC). You have already missed the chance to discuss anything with Arbeiter. As for me, I am only in this discussion to defend myself against your sock puppet accusations. It was you who originally resorted to "desperate accusations" of sock puppetry so that you could "feel little need to reply to" Arbeiter's accusations. Well, it's embarrassing that I didn't think to look back at my edit summary, but great that you found it. This is further proof that I am not Arbeiter's sock puppet: we voted differently! In Arbeiter's discussion page, I asked Arbeiter to "come back", and "defend your edits". I thought my encouragement and a merger would get Arbeiter contributing again. Now that Arbeiter voted to "delete", and especially now that Arbeiter left Wikipedia, I feel ambivalent about the merger. In fact, I will change my vote. It's very frustrating that my efforts to retain a Wikipedian not only failed, but got me stuck with Leinad-Z's sock puppet accusations. --DixiePixie 10:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't want to challenge my reply for Arbeiter, please be consistent with this decision and stop spreading the false theory that I needed some stunt to hide shameful behavior. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, once you accused me of being a sock puppet, you trapped me into exposing holes in your style of logic. Your type of logic could be employed against almost any user, and as continuously demonstrated, it can even be turned against you yourself. --DixiePixie 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT the place to be throwing around accusations. You people are getting WAY OFF TOPIC. If you want to go accuse somebody of sock puppetry gather your information and take it to the appropriate forum. In his defense Arbeiter and I got into some seriously heated disagreement over at another Biblical article but there was no evidence of any sock puppetry though I could tell how mad he was gettin he probably wanted to. ;) hehe. --Homecomputer 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homecomputer, you are probably right in saying that this discussion got too long, sorry. I don’t know exactly how one should deal with suspicion of sock puppetry in Wikipedia. Yesterday, before Arbeiter's last accusation, I tried to contact an administrator about this specific issue, and I even asked if he could take charge of this whole situation, but he didn’t reply yet. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for a delete discussion, you're really only supposed to comment on the article, but that's ok, live and learn, you do the right thing by going to the sock puppet page. 'brigado. --Homecomputer∴Peace 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Home Computer, thanks for the kind reply. But I still want to make one (last?) comment/question that is related with your first post. I did some research to find which specific discussion you were mentioning when you said that "Arbeiter was involved and there was no evidence of sock puppetry". My best guess is that you were talking about this AFD discussion for Biblical literalism. Am I right? If so, can you please review the participation of a certain User:Millstone in that discussion while keeping the concept of straw man sock puppet in mind? --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not review the material. Again, this is not the place to bring up or discuss such issues. The appropriate places to raise such issues are talk pages (click on someone's name) and the sock puppet forums which you've allready found. Peace.--Home Computer∴Peace 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got it. Actually, I have presented my suspicions but have been (from the beginning) restraining myself from advancing the evidence in regard to that. Most of the discussion now actually consists of me defending myself from accusations by Arbeiter and DixiePixie. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leinad-Z: Since you have openly questioned my gender, I feel it is no longer off topic to ask you a personal question. Does somebody pay you to provide censorship at Wikipedia? Your editing efforts obviously exceed an unpaid interest in history. By shielding those traditionally associated with the church while leaving Martin Luther to appear as the lone holdout against scientific advancement, you have led me to believe that you are a paid censor of the Catholic church. After all, this exception is completely inconsistent with your stated POV of dispelling the "conflict thesis". Beside this point, let me see if I understand (the up-to-date version of) your accusations. You want people to believe that:

  • Arbeiter voted to "delete" this content, but secretly maneuvers to "merge" this content back to the original page.
  • Although Arbeiter lacked the patience to join a revert war to defend his own edits or even stay with Wikipedia, Arbeiter actually cultivated an account to look like your sock puppet, because Arbeiter somehow knew that one day, you would start a round of sock puppet allegations, and wanted to be ready to turn the tables on you. Following that line, Arbeiter* then nominated this article for deletion with the foreknowledge that it would lure you into the discussion to make sock puppet accusations just in time to beat Arbeiter's pre-declared retirement date.
  • Arbeiter created the account named Millstone simply to join the Biblical literalism AfD, but then objected to the vote Millstone provided because the account was too new. (Wow... OMG... is it possible that even Freddulany is also Arbeiter's sock puppet? After all, just like Millstone, Freddulany agreed with Arbeiter's understanding that Biblical literalism exists. Arbeiter offered friendly encouragement to the new user just like Witch-King, and even declared that he valued Freddulany's opinion. After all, by using competing sock puppets, Arbeiter* brought the vote tally closer to his own position -- to abstain. Don't you see it? Or am I being as paranoid as you?)

Leinad-Z: Do you really think this is the simplest explanation possible? There are simpler explanations: Perhaps your overbearing approach to editing and disregard for the discussion process is spawning troll accounts by unknown persons?

Arbeiter: Perhaps your sharply pointed mannerisms in the discussion pages are doing the same.

Leinad-Z & Arbeiter: Are you discussing your edits with your personal friends and co-workers? If so, might one of them be attempting to support you? ...antagonize you? I guess the simplest & most obvious explanation of all might be that people actually exist with POV's aligning with your apparent opponent. Of course, I feel confident that I exist, but if the rest of Leinad-Z's accusations are true, I would like to tell both Arbeiter and Leinad-Z to look in the mirror, and say hello to each other. You both missed the opportunity to discuss your differences, and pull each other towards reality. If you had spent half this effort in a discussion page for the articles in question rather than hatching sock puppet accusations for each other, you two probably would have created something worth reading. For my part, I still maintain that dumping this content here was completely inappropriate. Leinad-Z should have taken his concerns to the discussion page once Witch-King reverted it back (even if you always suspected he was a sock puppet), and there was no attempt made to make this material appropriate for this article's subject; it was just dropped off here as if this page were the city dump. If ScienceApologist really wants this page to happen, he should have taken an active hand in it; throwing out the suggestion is not a sufficient effort. As for my apparent coordination with Arbeiter, it was the wikify tag that lured me into Biblical literalism's discussion page. The rest was documented on our discussion pages. As for always agreeing with Arbeiter, this is a fallacy. If I had followed his editing early on, I would have agreed with HomeComputer that his definition at Biblical literalism was off base and this threw the entire article into confusion. I also would have objected to some POV statements in the Darwin section of Biblical cosmology. However, because I only investigated this debacle after Arbeiter announced his retirement, these had become mute points since they had been deleted by the time I became involved. --DixiePixie 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to leave further discussion about the sockpuppets for a more appropriate place. Just defending myself from the yet-another ad-hominem attack: in this edit, I am reverting Witch-King’s previous reversion of the move. To leave the section about Martin Luther in the article was actually ScienceApologist’s decision. It seems to me that the section about Luther was somewhat more connected to the original topic of Biblical cosmology, since it simply mentioned Luther's interpretation of the bible without being a report of yet-another "instance of conflict". That said, maybe the section would have to go soon or latter, anyway. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess arguing with yourself was more fun. Don't pretend you were above the ad-hominem attacks. Your ad-hominem attacks against me lured me back here. Luther used a scriptural reference from the Biblical book of Joshua as evidence that Copernicus was a fool and actually a astrologer instead of astronomer. How could this not be an instance of conflict between science and religion? Once the rest was gone, it was guaranteed to face opposition by the first Lutheran to see it. I wouldn't doubt if the person who deleted it was a Lutheran who saw Luther being isolated as the lone holdout against scientific advancement. --DixiePixie 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE PUT ALL COMMENTS re: THE ARTICLE DELETION IN THE FIRST SECTION

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for merge or deletion. Merges are not governed by AfD and anyone is free to try that in the normal way. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fold system[edit]

I originally proposed this article for deletion for being fancruft and not establishing notability. It was contested by User:Tailkinker1972 who left this note on the talk page:

"This page has been nominated for deletion, due to it being considered 'Fancruft'. I have looked it over, and am prepared to rebuff.

Wikipedia defines fancruft as, among other things, "material which is typically lacking in quality, selectively biased, of a poor nature and of interest only to a small audience in the respective field."

I feel that this article is free of bias. It most likely is of interest only to a small audience, but so do many other articles on the subject of Macross, including the other articles on Macross/Robotech technology. As for its quality or nature, I invite others to improve on the quality of the article, rather than merely slapping it with a deletion tag.

I invite discussion.

Tailkinker1972 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)."[reply]

The article was again proposed for deletion by User:Desertsky85451 with the concern of "device from fictional universe, check mergers." Thus, I am taking it to AFD. Khatru2 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I believe it clearly states at the beginning of the article that it's fictional. However, if someone has a page for Robotech technology, I suggest it and articles like it be moved there. --Hemlock Martinis 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does every item or device from every fictional universe deserve its own page? DesertSky85451 03:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect There's got to be a bigger umbrella article this would fit under better. If not, there SHOULD be one... --Jayron32 05:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect along with Reflex Cannon and any other similar articles to a new article, perhaps Robotechnology. Information is certainly verifiable within canon (Japanese anime, dubbed anime and books alike), but probably not worth its own article. Confusing Manifestation 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with User:ConMan -- suggest that a suitable editor be sought to initialise Robotechnology so that this can be merged -- Simon Cursitor 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have easy enough access to the anime or time enough to start the article myself, I'll happily help once it's started, especially with references to the novels. Confusing Manifestation 13:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hemlock. Robotech and Macross both satisfy notability guidelines in their own right, and this article isn't inherently different (at least, in nature) than warp drive. I don't think we're in a position to be arbitrors of which strain of fictional technology is worth keeping and which isn't, based solely on the size of a particular fanbase. Kevin 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My decision wasn't based on the fanbase, but rather the amount of source material - Macross is a series of fixed length, and the fold drive is only significant in a few parts of it - the article says most of the things I can think of to say offhand about it. Besides that, there have been a lot of things said about the warp drive, in and out of the show, whereas I don't know if there's been that much external interest in the fold system that you could give much of an "in the real world" view. Confusing Manifestation 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Confusing Manifestation. --Limetom 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus war[edit]

Seems to be a neologism with a good chunk of original research. The only source given doesn't even use the term "bus war." Non-verifiable neologism. --Wafulz 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Needs clean-up, but a cursory Google search turns up a few reputable sources using the term prominently: South Manchester Reporter [12], icBirmingham.com [13] and the Beeb [14]. Caknuck 04:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could use better formatting and an expanded references section. Smeelgova 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Bus deregulation. It is redundant with that article. Incidentally, both articles suck, and a merge could improve both by providing more information and context. The Bus deregulation article is in serious need of rewrite, referencing, and possibly renaming; whatever happens however, we DON'T need 2 articles that deal essentially with the same topic. The topic IS encyclopedic, but the final article needs serious work. --Jayron32 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge — as per User:Jayron32. Leaning more towards merge, though. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urfanism[edit]

There is only one link to Urfanism on Google, indicating that this is non-notable with no possibly of finding reliable sources Jeff3000 03:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7. VSCA with no assertion of notability. --Daniel Olsen 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per A7 and WP:SNOW --N Shar 04:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Brim 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Smeelgova 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is a religion that warrents being listed on the List of Religions page of wikipedia (BHCMST)
  • Comment. Please provide evidence for this assertion. How many followers does the religion have? Where is the proof of this (independent figures, preferably from a governmental census)? Where is there a published reference to the religion? Etc. --N Shar 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I'll see your A7 and raise you a G12. Much of the text is C&P from urfanism.com. Caknuck 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • urfanism.com seems to provide enough information to back up this listing. as long as they represent themselves well enough, they should be on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.167.144 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment. Please see my comment above. Urfanism.com does not provide answers to any of the questions I have asked there, nor to others that must have answers before the religion is considered notable. --N Shar 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, according to WP:ORG, "Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability". --N Shar 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ranks high on the nonsense scale, too. Anyone want to tag it with a speedy? MER-C 10:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and tagged as such via CSD A7. Wildthing61476 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm declining to speedy it, as I feel this is not about the group of people so much as it is about their philosophy. But I'll leave the speedy tag on in case another admin feels differently. -- Merope 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would speedy it but I'd like an AFD decision so it can be G4'd when it is (inevitably) recreated. NawlinWiki 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with NawlinWiki, let's run the full AfD to establish the precedent for G4. Still, this is unverified soapbox material.-- danntm T C 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I guess that religious cults based upon murderers can be listed on here, but not Urfanism? It was listed under Urfanism, which is its name, and was also listed on the List of Religions under NRM (new religious movement). What is the harm in that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhcmst (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lutz[edit]

Vanity article already deleted once by Wikipedia administrators, and resurrected as it was. As it stands, this article does not belong in the Wikipedia. Toring

  • Speedy Delete G4. Simple recreation. --Daniel Olsen 04:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple recreation, but since it was previously speedied rather than deleted under AFD it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (under G4 at least). Yomanganitalk 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete again under A7. So tagged. MER-C 10:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've declined the speedy deletion. The speedy deletion had already been contested at Talk:Al Lutz. Please find other rationales for deleting this article. Uncle G 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Akradecki 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable (WP:BIO) QuiteUnusual 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable WP:BIO. Al Lutz is probably the most noteworthy internet blog writers on the theme park business. His blog is often referenced in Los Angeles Times stories concerning Disney for the past six years. I believe it is important that his entry in Wikipedia remain as it allows readers to understand why he is a credible source.Spike 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable WP:BIO. This author is the editor of a well-known website tracking Disney, especially its Parks and Resorts Anaheim property. His column is frequently quoted in the media:
    • An article on the possible change of Tom Sawyer Island [1] reached various news organizations, including the Los Angeles Times [2], the LATimes editorial desk (no reference: LATimes editorials are not archived), and numerous other publications.
    • An article on the alleged behavior of Lindsay Lohan at a Disneyland party [3] caught the attention of Lohan's publicist, and IMDB.com [4]
    • A search of the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register archives shows Lutz frequently quoted, and his website cited, in regards to Disneyland Resort policies or developments.
    • The subject is therefore notable as being newsworthy and independently reviewed. --Ridesim 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I have updated the main article page to reorganize content and more clearly link the subject to the WP:BIO standards. Hopefully, the editions will further demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Ridesim 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as notable. I guess it's a borderline case. Al's notable to disneyphiles, at least. Disney has a pretty big footprint in Wikipedia (see Category:Disney); if you're going to have articles on DisneySpeak and Donaldism, I don't think Al Lutz is that much of a stretch. John Callender 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this entry is a pure publicity piece. Lutz is simply a blogger, and has no true bearing on the Disney Company. It is non-notable, serves to inflate his website traffic, and is not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. 151.151.21.100 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, under the category of "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers". Without Al Lutz, Michael Eisner might never have been ousted from Disney, a Dow 30 company. His reportage is quite influential within the Disney community. See also Ridesim's points.--Plainsong 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a very influencial writer in regards to one of the most, if not the most, high profile companies in the world. This person's writings were used and referenced as a major influence behind Roy Disney's SaveDisney website during the high profile Roy Disney/Michael Eisner fued. And the world wouldn't have known about the Lindsay Lohan Disneyland party antics if it wasn't for this columnist. --Marriedtofilm 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ MiceAge.com - A different look at Disney
  2. ^ [1][dead link]
  3. ^ MiceAge.com - A different look at Disney
  4. ^ Movie & TV News @ IMDb.com - WENN - 24 July 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. --Coredesat 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Berg[edit]

bio page for NN-weather channel personality delete DesertSky85451 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE's 100 Most Important Events of the Second Millennium[edit]

Essentially a copy of Life's top 10 events of the millenium, with a link to the other 90. This isn't really the place to mirror some other organization's lists. --Wafulz 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. --Aaron 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is probably a copyright violation anyways; I'm pretty sure that subjective lists ("Top N widgets...") are copyrightable. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the EVENTS Keep or Catagorize the PEOPLE Why?? Because the people list, as it stands now is just a numerical list of the 100 top people Life, a major magazine, thinks are important from 1001-2000. It links to the appropriate wiki pages for the meat of info. I don't see a problem with having a page for people who know of the article, but who may not know who exactly is on it, and they want to learn more. EnsRedShirt 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As I stated above, I'm pretty sure that the list is a copyrighted work of Life Magazine. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete iff remains in substantially current form These articles about someone's lists of the "Top N of Foo" are delicate issues. Generally such articles are acceptable when the creator of the list is notable, and the article is discusses how the list was formed, controversies with the selection process, and the significance and impact of the list. It is not acceptable to just regurtitate the list in the article, partially because of copyright concerns, partly because bald lists are unencyclopedic.-- danntm T C 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Er, your bolded iff statement doesn't make too much sense. --Wafulz 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification I'm quite simply stating that why such articles are not inherently doomed, in this form, it should be deleted.-- danntm T C 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Oh wow nevermind, I completely misread your comment in the first place >.< --Wafulz 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not created yet another non-defining category for people. Pavel Vozenilek 16:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunn Consistency Model[edit]

Delete: Unverifiable. Appears to be a hoax. Deprodded by an IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. Maybe bordering on a G1 speedy candidate. --N Shar 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense (I just tagged it). The words are all real, but none of them add up to anything even remotely meaningful. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tag removed by admin as "doesn't meet any csd criteria". Go figure. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Xe is correct. It doesn't. The article is comprehensible, and therefore it is not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense explicity does not include hoax articles, and hoax articles are not speedily deletable because it takes more than one pair of eyes to reliably identify hoaxes. That is what this article is: a hoax. Uncle G 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been unable to confirm the existence of any such thing. That, and the article's self-contradiction, lead me to conclude that this is a hoax. Delete. Uncle G 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax QuiteUnusual 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, per Uncle G.-- danntm T C 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSRC[edit]

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

The result was delete. DS 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently running Broadway shows[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. More importantly, the list appears to be only intermittently updated [15], which means there's a good possibility the information is often incomplete and/or incorrect. There are an untold number of web sites devoted to theater and New York City tourism that handle this sort of thing far better; it's best that we leave it to them. Aaron 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't the sort of thing that an encyclopedia is good for. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Let's leave this to the New Yorkers "On the Town" section, okay? They, at least, update weekly. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a directory, indiscriminate collection of information. They can always check guide books, websites etc. for such stuff. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a playbill, and this list provides not added value (cf. WP:LIST).-- danntm T C 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-historical lists that require constant maintenance are inappropriate. -Amatulic 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kisby[edit]

I think this should be deleted, but I am posting this here on AFD as a last attempt to see if anyone can find references or sources that verify that this person existed and was the "Canadian Ice Ballet Champion in Kolsas, Norway 1990." I have not been able to find references online. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most emphatically not verified. Delete. --N Shar 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possible speedy. A google search turns up bubkis. 2 hits. I mean, its so bad, this article might well be a hoax. --Jayron32 05:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I first started editing Wikipedia, I deleted most of this entry as slanderous and unverified. I think the rest of the article could go now; I think I left that sentence because it wasn't slander, not because I could verify it. --Brianyoumans 06:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible hoax, zero google hits outside of wikipeida and its mirrors. Storm05 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Eason[edit]

Prod was removed without explanation. A minor indy artist with one independently released album. No major hits, no major media coverage, no reliable third party sources leading me to believe that the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and is largely unverifiable. His claim to fame is his supposedly high PureVolume rating, which is a dubious mark of notability at best. A Google search of his name brings up a forum about him with roughly 10 posts, and a pure volume page. Nothing at Allmusic.com. Wafulz 05:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Counterargument
1) In defense of the artist, the WP:MUSIC rule states: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." PureVolume qualifies under this rule, period. If this is not the desired definition of the rule, the rule should be rewritten or elaborated upon. Furthermore, being that I edited the article with the PureVolume statistics, the statement "His claim to fame" is a subjective and therefore an irrelevant remark. The word "dubious" (above) also suggests subjectivity and should therefore not be considered valuable to the evaluation the argument. If so desired, and if this case were being conducted properly and fairly, the protestor should verify PureVolume statistics by contacting PureVolume, especially before making accusations.
2) It is not a standard practice for Independent artists such as Mr. Eason to submit publications to organizations such as AMG, therefore, AMG (Allmusic.com) is not a reliable tool for scrutinizing credibility. In addition, there is no rule under WP:MUSIC that credits AMG with being the means by which to validate an artist. If this is so desired, a rule should be put in place.
3) The above argument about the google search is misleading. As we all know, google results vary daily depending on hits. The fact that the search "Les Eason" brings back 10 pages (635) of results, and the fact that profile views on the artist's MySpace and PureVolume on October 17 are exceedingly high, it can be assumed that while his forum doesn't necessarily reflect high traffic, it is still a fairly popular page, at least on October 17. It is fairly common for music fans to prefer the artists MySpace over their homepage. Since the artists MySpace was recently updated, it has been cycled to last of the results when searching from google while it would normally be the top search result (as I have personally seen). Such is the case when any MySpace profile is edited. The artist's MySpace suggests a large fan base and boasts a number of posts, contradicting the above beliefs which are simply a result of premature evaluation based on the lack of participation, not traffic, on the Les Eason Forum page. An unfair and incomplete interpretaion. And again, forum activity is not one of the required criteria under WP:MUSIC.
Conclusion:
I understand that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotional or marketing pages, but just the fact that I got on here today and searched "Les Eason" is evidence enough that people are interested in the article. At first I was surprised to see that he had a Wikipedia page, but then I was even more surprised to see the discrepancy since this artist is so well known as an independent musician in Texas. It would be a shame to delete the article and definitely not based on substantial reasoning (contradictory to the given criteria even). If you left the page alone, you would undoubtedly find that numerous people search this artist. I also feel that further arguments should be strictly objective and supported by Wikipedia criteria, not personal opinion.
Lindseypooh 10 01:20, 18 October 2006
— Possible single purpose account: Lindseypooh 10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: Lindseypooh 10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.
  • Delete per nom. Linseypooh, PureVolume is a music community site, not a meter of radio plays. The WP:MUSIC criterion for a "national music chart" means radio plays and music sales, not votes on web sites. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Note that subject appears to have created page with users lindseypooh and 68.105.226.17 contributing. BTW/ I spent 3 weeks in Texas during Aug 2006 on the local pub and club scene and had not heard of him. Encise 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]

11:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • " the WP:MUSIC rule states: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." PureVolume qualifies under this rule, period." - Oh does it? you might as well use MySpace profile views as an arbiter of notability. Please, Delete --User:amists
  • Delete per nom, Dhartung and Ultra-Loser. --Aaron 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Les Eason Hey lindsaypooh10, I appreciate your support and yes, I do you remember you from the Amarillo show. Anyway, I was just board during one of my grad classes yesterday afternoon and thought I would make a wiki page. I read the rules for deletion and knew beforehand that it would be deleted. I was surprised to log on this morning though and see all the debate about it. Just delete the page. It's not a big deal and I agree that PureVolume shouldn't qualify. And if these guys have nothing better to do than to troll inferior pages like mine than and make rediculous comments (with the exception of Dhartung and Aaron) then that is pathetic and it says alot about the wiki community. I had never edited on here because I've never had time, but I did expect to find a more scholarly bunch than this. I do appreciate in some sense the attention the page has received and I would urge all of you to check out my MySpace for some samples. By the way, the Purevolume Stats she posted were wrong anyway. Happy trolling! LES Sometime during the day, 18 October 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.116.189 (talk • contribs)
    • So you created a page knowing it would be deleted, and proceed to tell us that discussing its deletion is stupid and trolling? And now you want us to visit your page? What? --Wafulz 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very highly doubt that calling dedicated wikipedians "trolls" and their comments "rediculous [sic]" is going to encourage anyone to get onto your myspace page and listen to your samples. You said yourself that you knew this page is going to be deleted, you don't have to make such a big fuss about it. Since you've apparently acquainted yourself with the deletion guidelines, might I reccommend that you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Etiquette as well? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNon-notable vanity affair of dubious musical origins and going no were, who cares. The Crying Orc 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable for reasons given above, and Mr. Eason is kind of a snot too, per his comment. NawlinWiki 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creature World[edit]

Website/Article is not notable. Fails to meet requirements of notability for WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. Article is also non-encyclopedic. MidgleyDJ 05:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Almost a speedy, if it weren't for "10000 members" which is a weak assertion of notability. MER-C 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitorikko[edit]

Non-notable toy MidgleyDJ 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiropets[edit]

Non-notable website. At the very least notability is not asserted. Article is non-encyclopedic. MidgleyDJ 05:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another Neopets knockoff without any specific claim to notability. Its abysmal Alexa rank of nearly 900,000 suggests that it isn't all that popular. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Marapets deserved deletion, this certainly does; it is in no way as comprehensive and is a much smaller website in terms of capacity and also members. Torika
  • Delete NN Anomo 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7--Konst.ableTalk 11:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trustee Stepan Vdovine[edit]

Reason for nomination. fails Wp:Bio, speedy was removed. An activist with a local schoolboard harldly meets criteria for inclusion. Lord of Illusions 06:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability established. It's unusual for a 20-year-old to hold an elected office, but hardly significant. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-listed for Speedy Delete per wp:bio. The original speedy template was removed without explanation by the author of the article. Editor warned. yandman 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoin[edit]

unnecessary dicdef for non-standard term CapnPrep 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki - dictdef. It should be noted that conjoin is a real word. MER-C 11:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It contains more information than wikt:conjoin. --ais523 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or Delete Patrick Hurston 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callan Park Lunatic Asylum for the Mentally and Criminally Insane[edit]

Information relating to this facility is contained in the article Callan Park, New South Wales. The Kirkbride Complex closed in 1994. amitch 06:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It appears to be out of date and unneccesary as the nom indicates. --Bduke 08:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- to Callan Park, New South Wales, a. - Longhair\talk 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article Callan Park, New South Wales relates only to the Callan Park precinct, whereas this article contains information on the asylum itself. The asylum is the most significant feature of the area, and its importance should not be marginalised. The article must remain. Socratis57 of Balmain.
  • Nom withdrawn Something happened to this discussion. It once was much longer. Not sure what. I was the original nominator; I tripped over it while doing some catagorization work. The article has been substancially fixed, and I now think it should be kept. It DOES need some references to make it better, but it seems to assert its own notability now. I have no idea what happened to the original debate. --Jayron32 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article still asserts that it is a mental hospital and that its future is unsure, yet Callan Park, New South Wales asserts it closed in 1994. Are you sure this is not a copyvio from some old source. I still think it should be deleted, or rather redirected to Callan Park, New South Wales. --Bduke 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt a currently operating psychiatric hospital would still be called an "Asylum for the Criminally and Mentally Insane", so I think a title change to the facility's most recent name is in order (Callan Park Mental Hospital, I believe). Yes, the article seems to imply that it's still operating, and according to NSW State Records, Callan Park ceased operating in 1976 when it merged with Rozelle Hospital. Friends of Callan Park says that there were still patients in the facility until 1994 when they were moved to other buildings and it was taken over by Sydney College for the Arts. --Canley 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Callan Park as per other views. There's no need for two articles on the same thing.Weak keep - the information covered has now changed so there's less overlap, but I'm still sceptical over whether we need two separate articles. This article could well be merged to provide a good article of FA status in the future about the suburb itself and its history, both as a mental hospital and about the redevelopment plans. JROBBO 04:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have thoroughly updated and modernised the article. Again, I draw your attention to the obvious fact that this article deals with the Asylum itself in great detail, whereas the other article merely contains general information on the site that is Callan Park. The Asylum is an important part of the history of the state of New South Wales and of the treatment and care of the insane, and therefore this article is important. I suggest that the other article Callan Park, New South Wales be deleted or linked to this article and re-named Callan Park Grounds, New South Wales. I hope that the gangs of ne'er-do-wells that lurk the pages of this online information source will accept this. User:socratis57 19 October 2006.
The proposal for renaming the other article would be inconsistent with suburb naming conventions on WP. I have to disagree with that. JROBBO 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the subject is historically notable enough for an article, and I've dug up some references which I will add shortly. User:socratis57, thanks for your work on the article, but please don't insult other users as "gangs of ne'er do wells" - it's not civil and doesn't help your case. Actually, can someone close this AfD and tag it for cleanup? Jayron32 has withdrawn the nomination (see above). --Canley 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Don't know what happened to the original nom, but I re-nominated it this time round. Even though some additional information has been added to the article, there are parts of the History: Bedlam in Balmain section which are basically copyvios from here or here and will need to be removed or quickly rewritten. The other additions are un-referenced. amitch 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Indeed, I could have been mistaken on that point. Still, the discussion appears truncated. I was watching this specific Afd. I have hundreds of things on my watch list, and I only watch AfDs I am involved in. I must have mad prior comments to this AfD if I was watching it. My comments are no longer here. I cannot find them in the history. I remember distinctly catagorizing this article, and thought I had nominated. Wait, I PRODed it, not AFD. Now I understand. OK. I guess I wasn't the original source of the AfD. Still, my PROD means I must have at one time thought it was deleteable. I no longer think so. The building described seems notable on face value. The article still needs clean-up but no longer seems to lack notability. --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see above for explanation --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have moved the Keep and associated comments from User:socratis57 which were wrongly appearing at the top of this page to its correct chronological place in line and changed their second entry to Comment so as to ensure only one vote. amitch 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historically very notable, could make for a really interesting article. Rebecca 02:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca and others. Natgoo 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca et al. Cnwb 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, historically notable, per Rebecca and others. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletionate. DS 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personating[edit]

Colbert neologism. This is nothing like the scale of truthiness; Wikipedia is not an almanac of television comedy gags. —ptk✰fgs 06:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Isn't there a new WØRD (practically) every night? How many articles will this run to? --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forever. I nominated a piece of Colbertcruft not too long ago. The response was ... unpleasant. --Aaron 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to posters from the author: Thank you for regulating

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith nomination. --Coredesat 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha[edit]

Reasoning:

  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a web directory.
  • WP:WEB - Site is not notable.

Also, Wikipedia is not to be used as an advertising service, which this is clearly what this is being used for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plkrtn (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy Keep close under WP:SNOW, former featured article. Notability is well established. —ptk✰fgs 07:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW — A former featured article, you'll likely find that this article is AfD'd because the "Lostpedians" can not have there own article (just read Talk:Lostpedia and look at his edit history.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though this was a close call. Nominating an article hoping that it gets kept to set a precedent contradicts general expectations that those who nominate articles for deletion want them deleted. This comes close to WP:POINT and may qualify under Wikipedia:Speedy keep as such and may also fit the description of a situation in which "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. These are also to be kept." This seems to be a nomination for the sake of process, and the nominator has stated he wishes for an outcome besides deletion (in this case, a keep). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia[edit]

per WP:WEB, SPAM Jabrwocky7 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not treat this as a personal attack on Wookieepedia. Lostpedia, a wiki for the ABC series Lost, has had its page deleted based on this policy. I hope that Wookiepedia survives this review and a precedent is set for other articles on Wikipedia. A quick look at the stats of both sites shows that Lostpedia, with an Alexa rating of 11,175, has over 19 million page views. Wookieepedia reports 8.9 million page views. The Alexa rating for this site includes all of Wikia, so those stats don't compare. The Wookieepedia article does not list any notable external references to the site, whereas Lostpedia was listed in businessweek.com and was a Scifi.com site of the week. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Uh...don't think so. It's been around a while, and I don't consider it spam. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wookieepedia is a very large database of Star Wars articles frequented by a great deal of people. It has a very impressive alexa rating of 3,230. — NMChico24 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alexa rating of 3,230 is for all of wikia.com. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not spam, and one of Wikia's biggest wikis. BryanG(talk) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The only delete was an attack on the subject's eligability as a physicist, and this is not the purpose of AfD. Daniel.Bryant 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher[edit]

WP:PROD was contested. Insufficent notability for a physicist. Next to no publications. --Pjacobi 16:54, 9 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 07:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete This article is from what I understand about a crank pseudo scientist and crackpot, not a physicist, who does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I read the Heim theory discussion and from what I understand Heim Theory is wrong. Wikipedia does not need articles on every wanna be scientist pseudo intellectual bent on finding bocus reasons to explain the universe. Stick to something solid like Metal. --The Crying Orc 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep appears to satisfy WP:BIO --Limetom 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Crackpots can be notable too, and belong in the pseudoscience collection of articles. If not kept, the content of this article should at least be merged into List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. -Amatulic 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the man won an award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [16] for his peer reviewed research paper and his work is being studied by ESA, so he's no crackpot, not can you honestly call it "pseudoscience"... if we can have articles about import models and such, this is a strong keep. His work was featured in prominent magazines like New Scientist [17]. GeneralPatton 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a tendency to mix notability and judgement on scientific value. This is not peer review. I think he is notable. Hektor 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberian Knights[edit]

Not notable musical duo. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. 144 unique Ghits for "Cyberian Knights", of which many from wikipedia or similar and a fair share of directory and myspace listings. Ohconfucius 07:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, non-notable. yandman 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, useless, meaningless. --The Crying Orc 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost further reading[edit]

Article was created purposely to be a spam db (see bottom of Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites, any internal links just duplicate Lost (TV series). Wikipedia is not a link database. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The talk page referenced above was an attempt to find a compromise between two very polarized factions. Extrapolating from that good-faith effort (which included two alternatives intended to span the range between the opposing editors) to assuming that the current article's motivation is vanity or "spam db" is a misrepresentation. --Santaduck 09:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read: WP:SPAM#If you canvass, this as well, specificly: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.", "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.", "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.", "Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)" and also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hopefully "Do not spam." has sunk in now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last sentence is mildly derogatory, and is not necessary. In response, I will reiterate that you are proving my point that you are focusing only on the external link / spam issue, which is obviously an issue near and dear to you, but only peripheral to the current article, to which you've nonetheless recommended a complete deletion rather than suggestions for changing its content. It also seems you've brought along other like-minded editors (I might be wrong, but you posted the afd twelve hours after article creation, then the next two delete votes by familiar editors follwed, the first (pjacobi) within 3 minutes, and the next (ptkfgs) within 21 minutes) from the previous debates. Also continued to be ignored by the current discussion are the contents of the article's talk page which were available before you made the afd. --Santaduck 11:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd prefer speedily. --Pjacobi 08:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This all seems to have started with a dispute over whether to add an external link to Lostpedia from the article about the TV series. What a lot of collateral damage it's caused! Concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 08:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite the comments of the above, this article is trying to avoid that counterproductive almost-flamewar to which the above two editors are frequent contributors. As a case in point, see their delimitation of the discussion to the presence of external links, which is not the primary motivation for this article. In contrast, justification for the current article was in article talk (and ignored in the above comments), as both Portal:Star Trek and Star Trek further reading exist (i.e. analogous articles for a fictional universe with an extended storyline and fanbase across various media), along the same parameters as this article. Any justification for deletion should take these articles, as well as others in to account. Thank you. As a further note, there is the WP-wide issue of statute vs. precedence, and the above editors seem biased toward statute.--Santaduck 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the concern is duplicate links, these could be offloaded from an borderline-long parent article. Note that many of the categories are not redundant between the two articles. Further the Lost Experience links are not duplicated in the main article. Also the presence of the navigation is analogous with the use of one in the Star Trek main article. I am trying to follow precedence of similar extant articles, and any constructive suggestions along those lines would be welcomed, and immediately implemented. --Santaduck 09:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to the existing pool of already-opinionated editors from both sides, I'd informally like to solicit commentary from long-time WP editors who frequent AFD pages, but are not previously invested in issues closely related to this article (Lost). Or, if someone could take the initiative as the vote goes on to identify which voting editors have already been involved in the issues related to Lost articles, and those who have not.--Santaduck 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Star Trek further reading isn't really a useful comparison here. Star Trek has been around for 40 years, there are five separate series, a slew of movies, hundreds of novels, etc. People have written doctoral dissertations on Star Trek. There are college courses on it, for crying out loud, and reams and reams of written material. I'm not sure we need a "further reading" article on it, and in fact I'd say we have about 20 times as much Star Trek crud here as we need, but it's clearly in a class by itself.
I haven't edited anything on Wikipedia related to Lost until this crap started spilling over into other articles. I've never seen it. I'm sure it's a great series. We don't need this article. —ptk✰fgs 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good God, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a link depository. -- Steel 12:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a cruft fork. The signficant ones are sources for Lost, the balance should not be here. Guy 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a link directory. This is a complete spam magnet. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This article is simply the latest foray in the months-long, ever-recurring battle by Lostpedians (who otherwise don't contribute to WP much at all) to get a link on WP to their site. See the long and contentious fansites discussion pointed to by the nominator. -- PKtm 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue: your fallacy is that a link to Lostpedia is the primary motivation to this article; further there are no WP editors in this vote thread (thus far) who "other don't contribute to WP much at all". Santaduck 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT QuiteUnusual 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but add a link to The Lostpedia (www.lostpedia.com) There should be a suitable link to the Lostpedia someplace in the Lost articles. The site is good, with lots of content, and such a link could drive fancruft off the Wikipedia to a place where it is needed. -Dr Haggis - Talk 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per guideline WP:WEB, which notes, "There is also consensus amongst many Wikipedia editors that Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links."--LeflymanTalk 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! DELETE! DELETE!!!, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Wikipedical 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I think this falls under WP:POINT. --Kahlfin 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't even pretending to be an article, one of the defining elements of which is that it has... well... content. It's just a bunch of links. GassyGuy 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Yamla 04:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fan sites re: afd[edit]

  • Note: external links for fan sites have now been removed, as suggested above. Rationale for AFD, as listed by the above editors voting for "Delete" has now been addressed. Article structure is now analogous to the precedence of Star Trek further reading, with the exception of the removal of these links. Santaduck 19:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exception: note that Web 2.0 external links have been retained to illustrate the strength of this phenomenon. IMHO they illustrate an aspect of Lost fandom without being spam. However if these links too are distasteful, they may be easily removed (without resorting to deletion of the entire article based on external links which no longer exist in the article.) Santaduck 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rationale for AFD, as listed by the above editors voting for "Delete" has now been addressed.
        No it hasn't. -- Steel 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Web 2.0? It's a link farm. Please refer to WP:EL. —ptk✰fgs 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Section removed as per your suggestion. At this point the primary rationale noted in the afd has been addressed. --Santaduck 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still a link db, ext/int or not, we have categories for this thing. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please stop saying that the rationale for the AfD has been addressed. Regardless of the nominator's comments, nothing short of deleting the entire article will address my concern. I'm sure this applies to others who've participated in this discussion too. -- Steel 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, this is now an entirely pointless and redundant List. How is it any different than the actual LostNav template used on every actual Lost article, and the External Links at Lost Experience? -- LeflymanTalk 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempting to remedy your concern; see section stub. However I am assuming the bad faith among the editors above will result in no substantive contributions from editors other than myself, as no constructive suggestions have been provided thus far. --Santaduck 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Equating disagreement with bad faith is both misguided and offensive. Please review WP:AGF. -- PKtm 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always begin assuming good faith. This assumption can change based on evidence, for example through comments I have seen of some editors in articles talks, such as yourself: 1) focusing on external links almost exclusively in this afd with "strong delete" with no reference to the article as a whole until this strange emphasis was explicitly questioned; 2) other misinformation as well as comments that have been construed by other editors as a vendetta in other talks such as the Lostpedia afd (see also the deletion review/DRV linked at the top of that page), are the reasons I have overturned my opening assumption of good faith. In other words, your own past comments subjectively suggest to me that the issue of Lostpedia has strongly affected the severity of your comments on this article. Also, based on your past comments, I further suggest that your posting of the obvious ( WP:AGF ) was possibly intended as derogatory toward me as well. --Santaduck 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update Oct 23

  • Still working on article to address concerns raised in the AFD. The most significant addition is the addition of a reading list with commentary on the significance of each piece. Working on getting sources for all of the claims.
The intent is that the content is substantially updated from the version that existed at the creation of the AFD (which signifcantly was opened by an editor who has been described by others as having a "vendetta" against one particular external link (Lostpedia.com) which was only a peripheral part of this article, and which in any case, no longer exists in this article. (See DRV here and AFD here). --Santaduck 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask that you please drop the talk of "vendetta", which borders on a personal attack. Again, equating disagreement with "vendetta" is misguided and dismissive of everyone's right to a respectful dialog here. You take the interesting logical leap of saying that because I've commented in the past about how I feel that a link to Lostpedia (a site I happen to enjoy quite a bit) is wrong for Wikipedia, I'm somehow part of a vendetta, and that my comments must be derogatory and/or in bad faith. Disagreement does not equate to derogatory either. So please dial it back. Thanks, PKtm 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraconductor[edit]

One company's theory. No verifiable reliable sources (no publications in scientific/engineering journals). Please delete. --Pjacobi 08:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds, if not thousands, of samples of Ultraconductors have been produced since 1981 when a piece of polymer was found to conduct electricity when it should have been an insulator. This work was discovered in the former Soviet Union by Dr. L. Grigorov and could one day be the subject of a Nobel Prize. Three floors of laboratories and a staff of Ph.D. basic research scientists performed the early work at the Institute of Polymer Materials, of what is now the Russian Academy of Science. In 1991 a paper entitled: On Genuine Room Temperature Superconductivity in Oxidized Polypropylene was published in Russian. The title appeared in HiTC Update, a publication supported by the U.S. Government. It stated the paper was only available in Russian. Magnetic Power Inc. had it privately translated six months prior to a published translation by the American Institute of Physics. The experimental work was impressive enough that our team visited the Moscow laboratories in late 1992 and evaluated the excellent science. We also arranged for applications to be developed by our subsidiary, Room Temperature Superconductors Inc., that was incorporated in 1993. This private firm has completed four Small Business Innovation Research Contracts for the USAF and what is now called the Missile Defense Agency. The Air Force did its own tests before awarding a Phase II Contract. It then had the work independently reproduced by Fractal Technologies. Dr. Matt Aldissi, the CEO of that firm, was the monitor of the Russian work for the USA while a staff scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He also convenes the annual International Conference for Conducting Polymers. Papers have been published in refereed publications including the Journal of Superconductivity, reflecting extensive laboratory experimnents. These materials offer an alternative to copper and the next goal is developing them into wire, which will take three years of laboratory work that may begin in the near future. In my opinion deletion will be a sad reflection on the inability of Wikipedia to intelligently deal with new and controversial science.

Mark Goldes, CEO, Magnetic Power Inc. and Room Temperature Superconductors Inc.

  • delete. Non-notable crackpot spam. yandman 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax/scam. useless. non-notable. —ptk✰fgs 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as with many pseudoscientific hoaxes, if this were real there would be countless reliable sources available. Of course, there aren't any reliable sources listed in this article, so out it goes. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete change to Delete---not just "one company's theory". It's one of several theories from a well-known crackpot entrepreneur. On the other hand, the parent company is well-known in pseudoscience circles, and the Ultraconductors company has actually gotten DOD grants---much to the embarrassment of the DOD, according to the linked Wired article. Content-wise/science-wise, yes, it's non-notable crackpottery. However, the existence of this company might be noteworthy---I can imagine a would-be investor hearing about Ultraconductors, buying the CEO's spiel, and Googling around for more info. For such a user, the connection between RTS and Magnetic Power, Inc. is noteworthy, as is a link to the Wired article and a few comments from mainstream scientists. (NB: a Google search for "ultraconductor" brings up nothing but free-energy websites and Wikipedia.) On the other hand, a) Wikipedia is not, at the moment, a database of all possible scams, and perhaps it shouldn't be b) with the CEO editing actively, NPOV would require constant attention; scientific-point-of-view even more. On the other hand, that view of noteworthiness is inherently a NNPOV one---I sort of want the article kept in order to insert a few scientific sentences there documenting that Ultraconductors are bunk. The CEO will presumably have another NNPOV idea of noteworthiness---he wants to make his company's thing look good by having it listed under "Physics" on Wikipedia. Combine those two dueling edits into an NPOV article, and you're left with something non-noteworthy, hence delete. Ugh. Bm gub 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is functionally an advertisement for a scam (despite efforts to add statements debunking the scam). George J. Bendo 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There has been at least one peer reviewed paper on this and if valid it would have enormous implications for physics. Keep at least until 2007, when products are supposed to become commercially available.--hughey 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Products in 2007? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The free-energy branch of the company has been promising "products next year" since time immemorial; if someday they release something and it works, someone will create an article about it then, and no-one will fault Wikipedia for not previewing it. Anyway, convincing people that "enormous implications" are just around the corner is how the scam works---that's the hook, just like the huge Nigerian trust fund which will be wired over after just one more fee. As for science, there's one peer-reviewed *theory* paper from 2003 entitled "Possible high-current superconductivity ... " and one from 1994 entitled "Speculative model for ...". These papers do not pass any sort of notability requirement on their own: certainly WP can't devote an article to every untested solid-state-physics theory. There are (quite literally) thousands of them. An article on any similar paper would be so deeply un-notable as to barely attract an AFD nomination. Ultraconductors combines science non-notability with WP:ADV and WP:OR. Bm gub 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this fits perfectly in the original purposes of WP:OR and WP:ADV.-- danntm T C 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WilliamKF 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research + likely hoax. --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_Metal[edit]

photographer with no claims to notability, most of article talks about his DJ'ing, which kind of implies that he's not all that as a photographer - delete Marcus22 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, non-notable vanity. yandman 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a steady flow of bone-crushing vanispamcruftisement. —ptk✰fgs 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, me DJ, me no wikipedia article, me delete heheheheh. --The Crying Orc 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Esteban F. (con.) 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What absoloute nonsense. Homeboy is not wiki... he's wikity wikity wikity wack! Encise 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
  • Comment Article creator vandalized this AfD and changed all the arguments to keeps. I've reverted it. --Coredesat 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and protect from re-creation. Robertissimo 06:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carole D'Andrea[edit]

This is still under construction, but as it stands, I think it already provides enough information about her and yet still doesn't show enough notability. Delete, unless there's more. --Nlu (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, there's more but I'm not going to waste my time.Tstrobaugh 13:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete par nom. Yeah, don't waste your time. --MaNeMeBasat 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I'll withdraw it if notability requirement can be satisfied. -Amatulic 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A minor role in West Side Story, and having been married to a notable actor for a while, seem to be the only actual claims to notability. Oh, and she worked in a nightclub where famous people performed. There doesn't seem to be enough here to support an article. Fan-1967 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my mind, I will make a plea. Carole is well known to be the most famous person from Altoona, PA and does not have an entry in wikipedia, whereas all those nobody sports figures do. Tstrobaugh 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would certainly disagree with that assessment. I'm sure far more people have heard of Paul Winter, whose career has spanned decades, a pioneer of the genre that later came to be known as New Age Music, than a very minor actress whose career was quite brief. Fan-1967 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Altoona and have never heard of Paul Winter.Tstrobaugh 13:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not from Altoona and I've never heard of Carole D'Andrea. And that's the problem; practically nobody has. She may be a local celebrity, but, based on a short and unexceptional public career, she's pretty much unknown elsewhere. Fan-1967 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Barker[edit]

Subject does not obviously meet WP:BIO. Book is from vanity press Lulu.com, the website has no Alexa ranking, and the print distributor appears to be very minor. She may be funny but that's not a criterion for inclusion, notability verified from reliable sources is. Eluchil404 09:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on late findings by YV, single purpose accounts also noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yungun[edit]

no reasons for notability provided, hip-hop musician unlikely to pass Music guidelines and apparently "training to be a solicitor". Marcus22 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Yangon as plausible typo. --Nlu (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Nlu. No explanation how this guy meets WP:MUSIC. Mangojuicetalk 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, you've got to. Anyway. --Primetime 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment erm.. could you expand on your reasoning Primetime? (Strange user page you've got there, btw). Marcus22 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked sockpuppet of banned user. MER-C 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked sockpuppet of blocked/banned user. MER-C 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy is more notable than Dubya ever was. --FlightCopy 10:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Indef blocked sockpuppet of banned user. MER-C 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one vote please, Mr Sockpuppet. Marcus22 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Of course he's a notable entity, more so than Lumidee. --Karmafist 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked sockpuppet of banned user. MER-C 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably another sockpuppet of a banned user. MER-C 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an open proxy. Jesse Viviano 15:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. MER-C 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Yungun is one of, if not the most famous hip hop artist in Britain, excluding the London grime craze. He regularly tours nationally and internationally. He has numerous releases that are clearly available for purchase on major online stores such as Amazon.com, Play.com etc. He has performed live on numerous national radio stations. He is regularly featured in the national music press and extensively in hip-hop magazines. He has been placed in rotation by many stations including BBC Radio One, Britain's most popular station. A most definite strong keep! And no, I am not a sock puppet. Yeanold Viskersenn 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's fine and dandy Yeanold! Not sure I agree that he's the most famous in Britain etc.. but if you provide the sources for the BBC etc that would make things much clearer. Then I could just withdraw nom., tidy up the page and voila! Marcus22 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I dont know much about hip-hop but those sources look good enough for me. If no-one has any objections can I withdraw the nomination? Marcus22 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC) altered to take into account following [reply]
  • Comment I believe you can't withdraw a nom that has objections in it. See the first two delete arguments. And the "references" are not non-trivial (a playlist doesn't establish anything other than the fact that it's been played on a playlist). Amazon establishes the album exists, but not much else. I'd like to see a review or something like that on the album. ColourBurst 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here hits WP:MUSIC or WP:BLP. You cannot withdraw a nom that has been objected to. References and sources must be in the article, not the AfD discussion. I don't agree that being featured on a minor / niche radio station playlist (BBC or not) or two confers notability, that's a long way from e.g. being a charted artist on a notable label or the subject of multiple non-trival media reports. Deizio talk 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. "Rotation" is very different to being played once. Rotation means you can expect to hear it several times per day across various different shows, for a reasonable length of time, usually because it has reached the charts or is a new release by a recognized artist. Keep trying. Deizio talk 09:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're clearly a big fan. "Rotation" means a song is played regularly (for the reasons I outlined above), that's both the definition as it pertains to mainstream radio and the spirit of the word as used in the WP guideline. In general, if something is (used) in rotation (e.g. crops, footballers, clothes etc.) they appear on a recurring basis or, as Wiktionary puts it, "a regular variation in a sequence". I also note you've done nothing to improve the article (which you have edited once, on June 26), you might want to invest your time in that rather than this afd discussion where you have clearly voiced your opinion as "keep". Deizio talk 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a music scholar I can tell you that in terms of radio airplay, rotation is actually derived from the term "spin", literally meaning the vinyl rotating on the deck. You don't seem to have cited the source of your definition "as it pertains to mainstream radio and the spirit of the word as used in the WP guideline" but anyway this isn't relevant. I've shown than Yungun is indeed notable on multiple counts, and whether I'm a fan or not is irrelevant. Nor do I have to be an active contributor to the article itself in order to discuss its deletion. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed you don't, and we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of rotation. However, you should still edit the article rather than the AfD discussion to show it satisfies WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 15:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better with the new assertions but still needs external references per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure if playlists count as WP:RS but I'm sure you can find something appropriate if he's the superstar you tell us he is. Deizio talk 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added numerous citations now. I don't think you can beat official playlists with regards to citing radio airplay apart from hearing the show itself. And for the record, I never claimed he was a superstar, but he certainly is one of UK hip-hop's most prominent figureheads. I don't know why you're taking this condescending attitude towards me when all I'm doing is trying to defend the deletion of an article that I know shouldn't be deleted. I find comments like "you're clearly a big fan", "you've done nothing to improve the article", "keep trying" and "if he's the superstar you tell us he is" to be unnecessary and somewhat impolite. Perhaps that's just me though. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I apologize... all the socks above put me on defensive mode in debates like this. The point behind my involvement here has been to get the article up to scratch per the relevant content policies and guidelines. Wd w/ the refs. Deizio talk 23:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it satisfies elements of WP:MUSIC. It would be nice to have another reference on him, however (there's one article on him; the other references are just playlists and mentions of appearances. However, WP:V does not seem to regard triviality of references (Notability guidelines do), so this is okay.) ColourBurst 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Also he has been interviewed at ukhh.com (basically the most popular uk hiphop website) several times. DeanSas 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Noblemen[edit]

Advert for NN online game. Previous deletion was for copyvio, but still fails WP:WEB. Percy Snoodle 09:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not notable and far too long. yandman 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet SOFTWARE. Only 3k players? --Gwern (contribs) 04:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable anime OVA's listed by year[edit]

Listcruft Zgo!! 09:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur with nomination. Only when we have categories for this that become unmanageable would we need the list page. —ptk✰fgs 09:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in The Twelve Kingdoms[edit]

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. Zgo!! 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or smerge. First of all, what does this have to do with Wikiquote? It doesn't have any quotes. Second, precedent is generally to keep lists of definitions when helpful to understanding the other articles in the topic, or at least to merge them. As a general comment, if you (Zgo!!) want my delete vote on anything, you're going to need to use your main account and not an account with no contribs other than AfDs, and moreover, you're going to need to give a valid reason for deletion. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, This has nothing to do with Wikiquotes at all, it is merely an informative article of terms relevant to The Twelve Kingdoms. — Exertim/contribs 4:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - list of dictdefs. MER-C 12:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zyudp 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the nominator's intentions, delete as this is not an encyclopedic list. It would be highly inappropriate to transwiki, except to an anime wiki or something... Wickethewok 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Twelve Kingdoms. While some definition lists are useful, this definition list is basically referenced only from one or two articles, and the vast majorities of terms defined here seem to appear only once or twice in an article, so in this particular case it would actually be less cumbersome to define the terms at the point where they are used, rather than forcing people to follow cross-references to a separate article. — Haeleth Talk 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a place or term is mentioned in the article then it should be explained in that article. There's no need for this additional list. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - I was the creater of this page. I prefer Keep, but I wouldn't mind a merge. The reason I created this page was to allow the readers of the understand some of the terminology in the Twelve Kingdoms and to facilitate the editors so they do not have to explain the terms everytime they write them down, which is often especially in the Characters section. It also shows the author portaits the books and anime as a diverse and cultural the world. This are not quotes. They are obtained from other sources and primeraly from the anime and books. If need to be merge, then most of the words will be removed, and only the most important words will remain. BTW, the only reason there is only two pages linking to this one is because there are only three pages of TTK (this one included), If more pages arrise, they would link here, because you need to explain the terminology. -- Guille2015 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF notes ways to avoid this kind of situation. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and define terms within main article per Haeleth and Ned Scott. -Kubigula (ave) 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list if full of dicdefs. Those who say that they're needed to explain complicates concepts in the main article need to learn how to use the footnote system. --Kunzite 16:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy (South Park)[edit]

This character appears in one (and one only) episode of South Park for (I just timed it); 8 seconds. And they arent even 8 important seconds, he just happens to do a show and tell before Cartman. The article effectively reads "Leroy did a show and tell about his frog", age: unknown, religion: unknown, voiced by: unknown. It can't ever be expanded beyond that as that's all there is to know! If he appears in future eps then sure, lets write a decent article then, but until then? Delete. Glen 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable minor character. —ptk✰fgs 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Glen. Playstationman 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or very weak merge into list of minor characters, per nom. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Barcode 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable character. ¬rehevkor¬ 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as hilarious as his 8 second scene is, he doesn't even come close to deserving his own article. Cyclone49 13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have to agree with you guys but still I think the article can be removed when it is clear this was only a 1 time appearance. The new episode airs tonight so we will see. I know he isn't all that important, so if hes deleted I'll add him to the "Other children" page. --SimonWhiteley 13:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, he's already there. FrozenPurpleCube 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Glen's nom says it all... --Alex (Talk) 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glen's nomination, which pretty much says all there is to say about Leroy.--Isotope23 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Danny Lilithborne 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a list of minor South Park characters.--Mr Beale 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my god, you deleted that article! You bastard! Seriously, though, this is a non-notable one-episode character. Fails WP:FICT miserably. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trebor 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Africa coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to project space, if an appropriate WikiProject exists. These sorts of pages are useful for editors working on related articles, but aren't really appropriate in article space. —ptk✰fgs 09:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move per above. MER-C 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as noted in other votes. Encyclopedic information that is necessarily graphics intensive. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or move:
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
Wikipedia:Galleries is NOT policy. It's a proposal that's barely entered discussion. Even it specifies that galleries are not generally accepted on wikipedia. It offers guidelines, but then it recommends that galleries be placed on commons, rather than on wikipedia itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I'm not crazy about the way this is being done, but I can't think of a better way to display this information off the top of my head and the content itself is encyclopedic.--Isotope23 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This article and the other like it have been nominated by a user whose first edit was today and involved deleting articles. All of these articles have been created and approved by members of the Numismatics Project and provide encyclopedic information. – Zntrip 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue here can be addressed by adding explanatory text in each sub-section. Pure galleries should be moved to Commons, but galleries that include textual material fall more under the scope of Wikipedia than the scope of Commons. Titoxd(?!?) 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article would be notable if it were all text. Adding pictures of the coins improves the article. -Kubigula (ave) 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zntrip's and Tito Joe I 23:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki to Commons. Snoutwood (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, essentially duplicates the existing Commons page. Unlikely that this would be useful to a WikiProject; most people who want to see this will be coming there from the article, which already links to the Commons page. —ptk✰fgs 10:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want this to stay!CerealBabyMilk 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Asia and Oceania coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 09:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to project page of WikiProject Numismatics. This page is almost certainly useful for people editing articles on coins and coinage, even if it is not appropriate for main space. —ptk✰fgs 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move per above. MER-C 12:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins
  • Keep — This article and the other like it have been nominated by a user whose first edit was today and involved deleting articles. All of these articles have been created and approved by members of the Numismatics Project and provide encyclopedic information. – Zntrip 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins: Keep. The issue here can be addressed by adding explanatory text in each sub-section. Pure galleries should be moved to Commons, but galleries that include textual material fall more under the scope of Wikipedia than the scope of Commons. Titoxd(?!?) 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Tito's comments.Noroton 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zntrip's and Tito Joe I 23:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or move:
(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of circulating Europe coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of circulating Africa coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. Little use in the main namespace. MER-C 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins
  • Keep — This article and the other like it have been nominated by a user whose first edit was today and involved deleting articles. All of these articles have been created and approved by members of the Numismatics Project and provide encyclopedic information. – Zntrip 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins: Keep. The issue here can be addressed by adding explanatory text in each sub-section. Pure galleries should be moved to Commons, but galleries that include textual material fall more under the scope of Wikipedia than the scope of Commons. Note to closing admin: all of these nominations should perhaps be handled en bloc, as several nominations point to the one I referenced above. Titoxd(?!?) 01:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article would be notable if it were all text. Adding pictures of the coins improves the article. -Kubigula (ave) 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Zntrip's and Tito's comments.Noroton 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zntrip's and Tito Joe I 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or move:
(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of circulating Asia and Oceania coins[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Carnival float photographs[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, excessive level of detail for this topic. Commons is better equipped to sort this out. —ptk✰fgs 10:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per above. MER-C 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as it isn't really an article at all. A couple of these could be useful as illustrations in the Mardi Gras or New Orleans article. No objection to transwiki to commons and in fact this would probably be a good idea before deleting this article.--Isotope23 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above. -Kubigula (ave) 06:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Fayum mummy portraits[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Commons. —ptk✰fgs 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per above. MER-C 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this isn't an article at all, it's just a collection of pictures. Transwiki to commons before deletion would probably be a good idea.--Isotope23 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons. Then delete.-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  07:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Commons. —ptk✰fgs 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per above. MER-C 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image galeries have a valid place on Wikipedia. Dsmdgold 14:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this isn't an article at all, it's just a collection of pictures. Transwiki to commons before deletion would probably be a good idea.--Isotope23 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons with appropriate link from Vergilius Romanus article. The pictures are obviously useful. If not replicated in commons, don't delete.Noroton 02:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of the Belize fauna[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Commons. —ptk✰fgs 10:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per above. MER-C 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of the Belize flora[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Commons or delete per above. MER-C 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons; I believe this is one such. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Jan III Sobieski[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the Commons page does not have all of these, but it has others; the two should be consolidated. —ptk✰fgs 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per above. MER-C 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of banknotes[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to WikiProject Numismatics. This sort of page is probably very useful for people working on articles related to coins. —ptk✰fgs 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or delete per above. MER-C 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: encyclopedic information that is necessarily graphics intensive, just like the gallery of flags. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins
  • Keep. This is the third nomination, previous two nominations both concluded as keep. As per my previous argument, this is not the random image gallery prohibited by WP:NOT, there is encyclopedic text (see banknote) and this gallery is a perfectly fine fork from that article which illustrates the concept. hateless 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This article and the other like it have been nominated by a user whose first edit was today and involved deleting articles. All of these articles have been created and approved by members of the Numismatics Project and provide encyclopedic information. – Zntrip 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins and previous precedent. Titoxd(?!?) 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons - it's just a collection of pictures! --Anthonycfc (Talk to Me) (s) (e) 20:45 19/Oct/2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zntrip and Tito Joe I 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or move:
(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)
  • Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
  • Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
  • Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
  • Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic New Orleans Mardi Gras photographs[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into New Orleans Mardi Gras. The article could use some older images and these are appropriate for it. —ptk✰fgs 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons. MER-C 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. This is one of Wikipedia's pages of additional images which predates the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this isn't an article at all, it's just a collection of pictures. Transwiki to commons before deletion would probably be a good idea.--Isotope23 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic pictures of 1906 San Francisco earthquake[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and copy the lithos to Commons. The gallery at Commons is complete enough and there's not really a feasible way to add any more of these to the 1906 quake article. —ptk✰fgs 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete per above. MER-C 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. This is one of Wikipedia's pages of additional images which predates the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per Infrogmation. No deletion unless replicated in commons.Noroton 02:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of 1913 Great Lakes storm images/Ships[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki or delete per nom. MER-C 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of 1913 Great Lakes storm images/Shipwrecks[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki or delete per nom. MER-C 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. These are images. When they are transwikied, they can still be added to the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of 1900 Galveston Hurricane images[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Galveston Hurricane of 1900. These photos have clear encyclopedic value, and could be easily added as a gallery at the bottom of that page. None are on Commons at the moment, so a sister project link is not going to help. —ptk✰fgs 10:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. MER-C 12:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was early close as delete because upon actually coming back and researching this, looking for sources, as opposed to the earlier simple cleanup and tagging, I discover that it is a word-for-word copyright violation of the article ("Copyright © 2001-2006 by Black Falcon Media Group Oy. All Rights Reserved. No part of this web site or related materials may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, retransmitted, duplicated, copied, reposted [...]") that is hyperlinked to by the first and second external links in the external links section, and has been for its entire history right back to the first revision. We don't keep copyright violations, and from that alone, even if not taking into account the rationales below, this content has zero chance of being retained. Uncle G 11:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PML Mini QED[edit]

Non notable car; reads like a brochure. It's even more spammier than when I prodded it. MER-C 10:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Sabal[edit]

At the moment, the article contradicts itself, unless one can distinguish between (a) work for which a photographer is most famous, and (b) the most famous work of that photographer (conceivable, but farfetched). Let's not quibble and accept that he's claimed to be famous for both his fashion work and "The American Dream," a nine year project documenting the life and face of homelessness in America. He's from the US. I'd expect that somebody who's so famous that he'd do (unspecified) international exhibitions and world renown [sic] keynote speeches (as claimed in the article) would have a book out: a search at amazon.com, abebooks.com and bookfinder.com shows nothing. I accept that it can be hard to break into publishing when you're doing something that's as resolutely uncommercial as "The American Dream" (if it exists). Surely this is mentioned somewhere? Not by Google: a search for "seth sabal" "american dream" shows only this WP article and some commercial scrapes thereof. What's written about this person is not verifiable. Hoary 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have seen the American Dream Display in Riverside CA. very nice, and attended a seminar in Los Angelas CA, where Seth gave a fashion class to 70 students. [19]

Its is very easy to find Mr. Sabal's work in the fashion industry.
File:Portada92006.jpg
'Sept 06 Vogue Mexico Cover


As for books, their are plenty of famous photographers without published books. From my recollection the "Amercian Dream Project" was not about the photographer nor did the contributors want to profit from its showings, I am almost certain that the project help raise awareness to a group of individuals that were starting a homeless shelter. I do honestly cannot remember the name. I can tell you that I did see the show.

Furthmore; Hoary, I would remove the part in your grounds for deleation about "Mr Sabal claiming to be famous", It's libelous. I do not know that Mr. Sabal or his attoneys have seen your enties or for that matter the Wiki article; however, I have forwarded your Libelous claim through to the legal dept. at Seth Sabal Studio in NYC. I agree with Robertissimo calling the artical Apparent advertisement , but this can be fixed. I will do that myself. .... contributed at 14:12, 18 October 2006 by [DrBillMartin]

  • Comment: (1) Thanks for the Vogue cover. This is now quite the most handsomely illustrated AfD that I've ever seen. (2) It's libelous. Gosh, crumbs. [Deep breath.] I hereby waive my normal WP right not to have legalistic rumblings made against me. (3) I note that DrBill seems to share the same idiolect (or anyway orthography) as at least one other advocate on WP of this photographer. -- Hoary 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:DrBillMartin, please read WP:LEGAL. Furthermore, the AfD nomination states that the article claims that Mr Sabal is famous, not that Mr Sabal claims it himself. Any lawyer, or Mr Sabal's "legal department", isn't going to touch your threats or claims of "libel" with a bargepole. --Canley 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:DrBillMartin, I am the legal counsul at Seth Sabal Studio, nothing was said even remotely libelous. Thank you Dr. Martin for you concern and your email.
  • I removed all uncited or bias. claims from the article entry. We are deeply honored to be written about on Wiki and we cannot control what people post about us. I have proof read the artical and approve the content. thank you.
    • News update! The new user who made that comment -- perhaps some relative of Rochelle Goldstien? -- has indeed just now wiped out all the "American Dream" stuff from the article. Now the claims about Vogue etc. are accompanied by a link. But when I click this, I read "Click here to get the plugin" (thanks but no thanks) on an otherwise blank page. And it appears to be a link not to a disinterested source of information but to Sabal's own site. -- Hoary 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • News update! Maybe you computer lack the flash player? The link gives me a website with the photographer work, most importantly work that is in this month's Vogue Brazil.
  • Comment Well, the article has been busted back to a stub that at least is verifiable which is a good thing. I don't have an opinion yet, but for those trying to get this article kept, please read WP:BIO. Right now there is a contention that his work has appeared in several magazines, which would meet WP:BIO criteria. What is missing though is reliable sources indicating this. All sources and external links in the article are from Mr. Sabal's website which, for the perpose of determining WP:BIO, can't exactly be viewed as a neutral and reliable source. Can someone produce external links or evidence of his work being published that is reported by a source other than his own website?--Isotope23 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You say that there is a contention that his work has appeared in several magazines, which would meet WP:BIO criteria. I'm puzzled by this. I can't see anything to support this in WP:BIO (though I must admit that I haven't yet drunk my first coffee of the day and thus may have missed something), whereas when I look within that page for "photographer" I read ofPublished ... photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work; and I don't think that any of the various usernames who have defended this "artical", as they call it, have claimed multiple independent reviews of or awards for Sabal's work. -- Hoary 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Sept. issue of Vogue Mexico and the current issue of Vogue Brazil (Oct. 2006) both have covers shot by the photographer. If you visit the websites of these publishing houses or subscribe to the magazines you can clearly see the presence of Mr. Sabal work. Coincidentally, the people that are fighting the issues of the articles are more than likely frustrated photographers, with professional jealousy. I am sure that Mr. Sabal does not care wither the artical stands or not; however, it would be childish and unfair to not have every photographer site every single sentence of all the work on all the articles on WIkipedia. I can understand that some people have nothing better to do. SO far the only person that has even been reasonable is isotope23, his points were valid unbias and very reasonable, plus you can tell he can see the trees in the forest. Hoary on the otherhand must really want to bother people, or is just hurting inside so much that he chooses to fight with his computer. I think its sad, get a job. (unsigned comment by 74.66.236.104)
Comment to 74.66.236.104 -- Please heed the notices on your talk page. You have repeatedly vandalized the article by removing the AfD notice. This notice serves to alert all users as to the discussion here. SteveHopson 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hopson, your a photographer man! You have repeatedly vandalized the article by trying to have it eliminated for no reason, which clearly won't happen, it's all valid. Get it together, make a valid point to why it should be deleted at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.58.158 (talk • contribs) .

I have no idea why you would say that I have vandalized the page in question. I have restored the AfD statement several times in an effort to allow this discussion to take place. I have not expressed my opinion in the debate because I am studying the question. SteveHopson 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So many comments and arguments, and no votes. Well I'm voting. None of the discussion above or on the talk pages convinces me that this article is anything but a vanity article. The fact that so many proponent(s) are anonymous speaks volumes, and suggests sockpuppetry. "Legal counsul"? Real lawyers can spell better than that. -Amatulic 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Amatulic. Notariety is unverifiable.Montco 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further oddities: I wonder about the photograph within the article, captioned International Photography Convention 2004. Photo of Seth Sabal by Felipe Zapata Vazquez. It's Image:Mexicocity2.jpg, which we are told there is Photograph of Seth Sabal Keynote Speech International Photography Convention, Mexico City 2004. Google has very few hits for "international photography convention"; none of them seems related. But perhaps "International Photography Convention" is a translation of a name in Spanish. No matter, as anything so grand and so recent in which Sabal made the keynote speech must surely be written up on the web -- but when I google for either "seth sabal" mexico or "seth sabal" méxico, I see nothing about this event. I'm left with no reason to believe that Sabal made a keynote speech to any "International Photography Convention" in Mexico City, or to one of any significance. ¶ Incidentally, Talk:Seth Sabal has some interesting bits in it. -- Hoary 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have considered and researched this AfD over the past several days and cannot reach any conclusion other than Delete. None of my extensive searches has turned up any positive information about this photographer that was not generated by himself or as a result of the Wiki article. I have found some extremely negative material suggesting unethical business practices, but this information has not factored into my decision. Each thread suggested by the article or the editors above has not produced any verifiable information. I have also watched the article shrink as other editors have questioned the accuracy of the information. As a side note, this discussion has been very acrimonious with so many personal accusations. While I resent the barbs thrown my way for my actions in trying to preserve AfD notice on the article, these did not factor into my decision. I would suggest that administrators follow-up on the questions of Sockpuppetry as the article and this discussion would seem to exhibit evidence of this strategy. SteveHopson 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Close early as delete per consensus and WP:BLP concerns. FloNight 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Carr[edit]

Notability concerns MidgleyDJ 11:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. MER-C 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a vanity article. -Amatulic 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure his mommy loves him and thinks he's notable, but he's not ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia.OfficeGirl 05:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable to see here. Jeendan 05:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzaku FPGA board[edit]

NN product, microstub. Article is neutral but its existence here is advertising: Wikipedia is not a catalog. Previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUZAKU FPGA board was closed as a keep but got virtually no input from the community. Mangojuicetalk 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmark Techno had roughly the same level of discussion, and was closed as delete, which is unfortunate because an article on a manufacturer is the obvious merge target for an article on an individual product. Perhaps Atmark Techno, Suzaku FPGA board, and Armadillo CPU Boards should all be (re-)considered together. Uncle G 12:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If so, they should all be deleted. It's a walled garden, and a very old one I might add: these articles were put up in August of 2005, by a user who then vanished. Mangojuicetalk 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Even if the previous AFD was closed only two weeks ago, this listing is legitimate because the previous AFD should have been relisted, not closed. Punkmorten 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zyudp 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No significant content would be lost. --Kunzite 16:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballbag[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP, if the company even exists. I can't even tell if it's supposed to be a joke because it's not especially funny. --Dom 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The company exists, but does not meet WP:CORP. There doesn't seem to be much information about them, and the article cites no sources. -- Whpq 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookbuddi[edit]

Non-notable shareware, does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 12:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim of notability, or third party mention anywhere I can find. The articles authors talk page states it his his software, seems to be promotion to me. HighInBC 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless there is a similar or better product already in wiki. Is there not a place or category in wiki for new or unproven ideas? Articles should have a link to pages of reduced Wikiquette, links, to reduce deletion disputes. Google is about finding controlled, machine-generated, web pages while wiki should be about finding freely generated, human information. The universe is composed of 3 basic elements; Finite Matter and Energy and Infinite Information, which is all what space, time and life are about. Wayp123 08:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Actually per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not to be used to show off "new or unproven" ideas. Verification and reliable sources are needed to show why this software is notable. Wildthing61476 12:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if Wikipedia were for new and unproven ideas, I see nothing particularly new there. Xtifr tälk 08:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You can only say that if you have downloaded and tried bookbuddi? Wayp123 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that the article is lying? Or merely woefully incomplete? And have you compared it to what comes with Debian? In either case, the question is irrelevant. Notability is the issue here, and bonzi bookithingie ain't. Xtifr tälk 11:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point me to a specific program that comes with Debian? Wayp123 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not matter, at least I can assume that there is nothing better out there. Wayp123 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole thing seems a bit childish, we all having this dumb Keep Delete argument. I am going to tell my mommy ;( Wayp123 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You don't have to keep voting keep, one vote per person will do nicely. By the way, I noticed that you spammed a number of articles with links to BookBuddi, and that is frowned upon. Wildthing61476 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it to make the articles more complete. Wayp123 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is actually considered linkspam, not "completing the article". Wildthing61476 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever! Wayp123 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out duplicates. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is one of the best sites on the web, especially with bookbuddi, links and all. I may just be dreaming, maybe someday, some of the long articles, with large picture illustrations, could also be downloadable in bookbuddi format.
    Comment Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, one man one vote does not apply here. Bookbuddi is in a fight to the death of its life on Wikipedia. Rules are exposed to interpretation and change. Wayp123 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So if Bookbuddi is deleted (which let's be honest, it WILL), what does this mean? Wildthing61476 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great loss for Wikipedia and mankind. Wayp123 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you said above, "whatever". Get your program recognised outside of Wikipedia and then maybe it can have an article. Wikipedia is for documenting already-established things, not for promoting new and unknown things. Please understand that trying to promote your software here is considered an abuse of the encyclopedia, not a valuable addition. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while (Rules_and_more_rules_and_too_many_rules>1 || other_bad_factors)

{

Freedom--,Knowledge--;
Chaos++;

}//Wayp123 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you disagree with Wikipedia having rules, but it's necessary in order for it to be an encyclopedia instead of a marketing platform. In fact, by restricting the domain of Wikipedia's information, there is greater concentration of useful knowledge and less chaos. Freedom doesn't enter into it, because Wikipedia isn't your or anyone else's personal playground—we are guests here with no special right to freedom. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I wasn’t going to win but I had to try. I am also still waiting for a response from Xtifr. --Wayp123 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point you're unlikely to get a response. You might have better luck asking them at their Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and bye for now.--Wayp123 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not currently notable. There are plenty of speech synthesizing programs. Bejnar 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-web. Deizio talk 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smacky sounds[edit]

not encyclopedic Ling.Nut 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete-theres no google hits and no sources so this article is completely made up. Storm05 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombtrack[edit]

No evidence whatsoever that this is an accepted concept in music, sounds like an original research extrapolation of meaning from the name of one song. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete While commonly being found in numerous rock and metal pieces of music, it is not recognised by a specific musical theory or as a bombtrack as the article puts it. Certianly a nifty word but original research. Article seems to be an ill fated attempt to glorify Rage Against the Machine. --The Crying Orc 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Clever idea and a term which may well catch on, but there's no indication that it has yet done so. Further, the definition is a bit shaky and based on a perhaps faulty premise in the RATM lyrics. The comment on the article's talk page about the song possibly being titled for the lyrical content rather than the style makes a fair bit of sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the correct term is crescendo, which already is part of the dynamics article. --Limetom 02:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title of the song "Bombtrack" by Rage Against the Machine is obviously refering to the lyrical content of the song, not the crescendo at the start. The contents of the article are original "research" --LeakeyJee 10:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Bryant 06:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Rome metro crash[edit]

I suggest to merge with Rome Metro and later delete this article, It's a minor event and has little things to be added in the future to the article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Delete --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased Keep (as article's creator). Event is quite notable (6 on a scale of 1 to 10, I would say, based on consequences (Line A shut down in the middle of rush hour) and media coverage. Would have been 7 to 8 with more casualties.) and more can be added: how exactly did this happen, what will it mean for the Roman metro system, or similar systems in other cities, etcetera. See 2006 Valencia metro accident or Ladbroke Grove rail crash (more notable crashes, I admit) for what can become of this article. If that doesn't come in the next few months, then by all means relist or merge, but I suggest giving this article a chance to grow. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep such an incident is very rare and invariable leads to follow-up action of a noteable nature, thus making the incident itself noteworthy. - Blood red sandman 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, merge info to 2006 in rail transport. -- Kendrick7 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Give it a chance to grow. --G1076 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any event in which 200 people are killed, accident or terrorist attack or whatever, merits its own article. KazakhPol 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately there was only one fatality, while 200 people were injured. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 08:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep event received worldwide coverage, and is (fortunately) a rare occurrence in the urban transport sector. --Nehwyn 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No one's even proposed an outright delete yet, and "merge and delete afterwards" isn't an option (because that would remove the contribution history, which is required by gfdl). If you want to merge, merge (or propose it if you aren't sure it's a good idea). Don't bring it to afd for that. - Bobet 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important enough. Tim! 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, agree with Bobet. AfD is not the proper forum. hateless 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This should not be listed on AfD. Generally Wikipedia has substantial coverage of events like this, which I would classify as of interest to a small segment of the population. Squigish 04:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - too soon to judge. See Category:Railway accidents for similar articles of varying quality. Carcharoth 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - merging the two would double the size of the parent article, giving the accident too much weight. Also, if the accident results in a real shift in policy, practices, equipmetn, etc, then it becomes even more notable in its own right. --Badger151 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Bryant 06:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hoang[edit]

Nicely-written article, but not notable enough for the Wikipedia. Yes, he's very well recognized in the professional Smash community, but that represents a very small fanbase. Google search for his name yields < 1,000 results. Wikipedian06 09:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep He is very notable and has been sited by notable sources. He is the two time national champion of MLG, has been cited by EGM, Nintendo Power, and receive coverage on MTV. I am assuming good faith, but he passes WP:Notability with flying colors. Valoem talk 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nicely written and subject passes WP:BIO. Interest by a large audience is not a criteria, but being featured by multiple independent sources is. hateless 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. Featured in EGM. Passes WP:BIO. Andre (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weapons in Alien Breed[edit]

Of no value for anyone who doesn't play the Alien Breed games. List doesn't fit into wikipedia. Similar weapon list for more notable games have been deleted before.--M8v2 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unencyclopedic list. Wickethewok 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. -Amatulic 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content. Combination 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The page is a redirect that resulted from a page move, nominated by the editor that moved it. I've speedily deleted this on two grounds: The author and sole editor of the page has nominated it for deletion, so if the redirect is a bad name it qualifies for speedy deletion. If the redirect isn't a mistake, but rather the page move was, the subsequent edits by the editor who did the move prevent other editors from reverting the mistake, and deleting the edited redirect lets ordinary editors sort this out at their leisure without need for administrator intervention.

This is articles for deletion, by the way. Don't bring redirects here. Redirects are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Uncle G 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metrified English unit[edit]

Until 12 Oct 06 Metrified English unit consisted of three parts. The first part appeared to be original research. It was removed. The last part was merged to Approximate conversion between English and metric units. This left only the second part. What remained was moved to Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States. The reasons for this are outlined on that article's Talk page. Also discussed there is the fact that the old title Metrified English unit was inadequate. Metrification refers to the adoption of the metric system not to the creation of a new system. Jimp 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part one concerned a so-called "Royal System". It was claimed that this system had been proposed in the 1820s. This system supposedly retained traditional English names for units but gave them values in simple ratios to metric units. Part one appeared to be original research and was removed for lack of references.

Part two concerned proposals by Thomas Jefferson. This part was kept.

Part three was merged to Approximate conversion between English and metric units.

What remained therefore was the proposals by Jefferson. This was moved to Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States.

The reasons for this are outlined on that article's Talk page.

Thus Metrified English unit became a redirect here. However, Jefferson's plan has nothing to do with the metrification. Therefore it makes little sense to keep Metrified English unit as a redirect to this article.

Indeed, to metrify is to convert to the metric system. An English unit cannot be metrified. The title Metrified English unit never made sense. So there really is no point in keeping this as a redirect anywhere.

The same arguement applies to Metrified Imperial unit Metrified Imperial system and I'll be listing that for deletion too. Jimp 07:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed Metrified Imperial system. This is an even worse redirect because not only does the Jefferson plan have nothing to do with metrification but it has nothing to do with the imperial system either. Jimp 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jimp. This is terminology created by Wikipedia, not taken from the real world. It is both unnecessary and misleading as a redirect; it never had any links from any wikipedia articles not dealing with units of weights and measures as the subject; it isn't something anybody would link to from a history article or a geography article or a science article, and the redirect doesn't fit the article to which it redirects. Gene Nygaard 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to The Boondock Saints. KrakatoaKatie 07:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Smecker[edit]

All info in this article is already covered in the movie's main article. More important characters in the story don't have their own articles.--M8v2 01:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect, anythign in the article can be included in the film's. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, it's not necessary at all. Kansaikiwi 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, then redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Dog[edit]

Small None notable newspaper. All google hits for Prairie Dog newspaper are Wikipedia mirrors and articles about the rodent. External Link site doesn't work. So the newspaper must not exist anymore. Vanity--M8v2 01:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect to prairie dog and I dunno, put the paper information into the article on Regina. FrozenPurpleCube 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search for "Regina Prairie Dog"[20] finds mentions in everything from the Regina Downtown Association's website to the Bob the Angry Flower website. It would be preferable if somebody actually living in Regina could confirm whether the newspaper has gone under or not, and if not to expand the article. It is/was the Regina equivalent of the Chicago Reader, but it never had a 'real' web presence per se. (BTW it was a magazine, not a newspaper.) --Charlene.fic 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prairie dog.--Isotope23 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment obviously not notable...did not provide "published market share charts or licensing documentation" to establish notability within the target market. The link in the article does not work, either (at least not for me).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyakko (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I'm Stephen Whitworth, the editor of prairie dog magazine and we do indeed still publish, biweekly, as of Oct. 2006. We're an alternative (bi-) weekly and similar to, though obviously smaller than, publications such as Halifax's the Coast, Toronto's NOW, Seattle's The Stranger, etc. Copies of current issues can be mailed to anyone requiring verification of our existence. We may not be a daily newspaper but we definitely have a strong profile in this community (we launched in 1993) and likely do deserve a Wikipedia entry. Someone else ought to write it, obviously. We hope to launch a Web site within the next year. Thanks.
    • CommentYou say your newspaper is smaller then several other newspapers that have small entrys and in themselves somewhat none notable. Age is not a factor when deciding who or what deserves a article. Also even if you have a strong profile in your community doesn't mean the newspaper is of national or global importance. If that was the case every towns small newspapers would get their article. One last thing. By adding your comment you also prove the articles is of Vanity.--M8v2 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Prairie Dog is NOT obscure. It is in fact Regina's main "culture" newspaper, absolutely ubiquitous among the large university/youth/lefty/artsy crowd in the city, and well-known among pretty much everyone else, particularly for its restaurant reviews. It certainly has a strong presence in the city. Distribution/subscription figures are kind of hard to come by given the fact that it's a free newspaper. And "national/global importance" is NOT a criteria for a newspaper having an article. Regina's other major newspaper, the Leader-Post certainly doesn't fit that criteria and I don't see an AfD for it. Hiddekel 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do however think that the article's content should be moved to "Prairie Dog (Newspaper)". Hiddekel 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, discounting IPs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Box[edit]

Non notable. By own admission "As of 2006, there are only four different artists released on the label, two of which are the musical projects of the labels creators".
Also nominating:

All are just as non notable (you could even speedy a couple under A7), all created by the same user who has few contributions elsehwere (and none of them recent). -- Steel 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, none of the articles show notability. Author's claim to notability is that a label may be interested. Nuttah68 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of the bands have any notability (and pretty much all four of the articles on the bands could be speedied per A7), the label is non-notable because it started two years ago and has zero significant artists, and the genre "hauntology" is obviously made up (and almost solely credited to this label and its artists). -- Kicking222 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though i am the author) Hauntology is not a made up genre, google for 'hauntology music' gets over 800 results. saying its made up just exposes your ignorance!
  • Warp Records recognizes them as part of the emerging Hauntology scene. Which, it specifically notes, is what is notable about them...
  • Hauntology is an emerging genre, and it takes a split second on google to confirm that. Just because you havent heard of something, doesn't mean it doesnt exist.
  • Also, I dont really see the problem in that the article takes negligable server space, and no-one will search for hauntology or Belbury Poly without specifically looking for these articles, so what is gained from deletion.
  • Ghost Box the article now makes it clear why it is notable.
  • Searching '"Ghost Box" Music' gets 51,000 google results - I'm yet to find one not related to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.130.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Commercial sites, eBay, etc. And in terms of how much media coverage they're getting [21]... -- Steel 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now Ghost Box just reads like an advert. -- Steel 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the Hauntology article useful and Ghostbox is one of my favourite indie labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.123.255 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This is the user's first and (currently) only edit. -- Steel 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok I've been asked to make clear why Hauntology is notable, so here goes:
  • Searching Google News for Hauntology gives a very relavent professional press result.
  • Googling 'Hauntology' gives 16,000 results
  • Googling 'Hauntology Ghost Box' gives almost 250.
  • Googling 'Hauntology Music' gives almost 900.
  • I have added further examples of Hauntology to the page.
  • Warp Records have hailed Ghost Box as pioneers of "the emerging Hauntology scene."
  • Hauntology is being mentioned in the press such as the Seattle music review and stylus magazine: (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/the-focus-group-belbury-poly/hey-let-loose-your-love-the-willows.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr zoidberg590 (talk • contribs) Note: User:Dr zoidberg590 is the creator of these articles and is the same as User:81.154.130.6 above. -- Steel 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm beginning to think that hauntology may be vaguely notable, but the rest certainly aren't. 250 Google hits isn't very much, especially when half of them are to blogspot. -- Steel 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the 250 are for 'hauntology ghost box' a relatively specific search! "ghost box" gives 63,000, Hauntology; 16,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.117.102 (talk • contribs)
        • Yeah, but far from everything that comes up is to do with this Ghost Box. [22]. -- Steel 08:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But 39,000 are for '"Ghost box" music label' they can't easily be not to do with it.
  • Keep Useful in defining a musical genre.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  15:08, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, complete lack of importance / notability. None close to WP:MUSIC / WP:BIO. Deizio talk 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - major 8-page article in The Wire this month on Hauntology with a significant text portion and many illustrations specific to this label. Ac@osr 17:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of the articles show notability, not a recognised musical genre, dubious whether it is even music, a bastardised rip off of more established forms of music, even a possible hoax. --The Crying Orc 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - definitely not a hoax, unless you intend to show that the single most significant publication in the field has been had.Ac@osr 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this a useful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.250.52 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: This is the user's only edit.
    • Please note that "it's useful" is not a reason for keeping the article. -- Steel 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah we certainly don't want useful articles in wikipedia...Dr zoidberg590 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - indeed it isn't but it shows it has been looked up by someone seeking information on the genre. Ac@osr 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Depends whether you AGF or not. -- Steel 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Well I came across this article while looking for info on some musical stuff. The article guided me to search for some other music classified as hauntology. OK I realize the term is not widely used, but to me it makes sense, it is referential and I can relate to it (knowing some of the musical stuff that's being denoted as hauntological). I will definitely go look for that The Wire issue describing this genre of music in more depth. Meaning - I got the info I wanted and even managed to widen my knowledge in the field -- isn't that the purpose of encyclopaedic sources? 84.255.250.52 05:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Kat.[reply]
      • Surely an major 8-page article on this exact subject must ensure it's kept, right? Dr zoidberg590 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per lack of notability. A record label that was founded in 2004 and has released seven albums by four artists doesn't quite cut it. As for music "genres", Wikipedia shouldn't participate in promoting neologisms, even if some magazine does. There are thousands of record labels and non-notable bands that claim to have invented a genre of their own. Also, since all these articles were created by the same user, the whole thing smells like spam. Prolog 23:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could this possibly be considered spam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.218.217 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fridgebeats[edit]

Non-notable musical artist. Only 15 Google hits. Fails WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:V, WP:RS. Probably vanity as well. Was PROD'd but removed by author. Delete. Wickethewok 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Half-Life. KrakatoaKatie 07:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Special Forces[edit]

Non-notable video game mod. Was previously deleted HERE, but I don't think it quite warrants a G4 deletion. Unsourced and unlikely to be able to be sourced, failing WP:V and WP:RS. Wickethewok 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Half-Life. i am borderline Delete/Merge. There are so many different mods out there like this that if there was an article for each one it would be way to many articles on this game. i think there should at least be a mention of a few unofficial/independant mods in the Half-Life article but nothing more. - flipjargendy 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of hits on Google. It is one of the most popular 3rd party mods for Half Life 1 (after Natural Selection and a few others). Kurt 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because it's one of a few famous Half-Life mods! But the article himself has to be improved! -– Sensenmann 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Bryant 06:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hana[edit]

This is an article about a homeless person, Ben Hana. I could find articles about homeless people from all over the wrold. On the page he is talked about as if he was spritual medium. He was arreted a last year for drunk driving(what a suprise). He said he was not driving the unregistered Toyota he vandalized but a 'Waka'. When he reported for community service he could not work becuase he was required to wear shoes, which he says he has not done in seven years.

Why is this bum and a criminal on here? Is this what wikpedia has resorted to? Lets take him off for godsake!--MD1954 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be enough reliable sources to validate him, plus he seems to be the New Zealand equivalent of the Shakespeare Lady. Wildthing61476 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of agreeable people. hateless 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - he is notable within Wellington and maybe slightly wider in NZ, although a tad annoying. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Being homeless or a criminal does not make him any less important to Wellington. There are plently of articles in WP about criminals. --Roue2 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never would have guessed this before reading the article, but Keep. Seems sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Widely noted within Wellington and sufficiently notable in the wider NZ press. In fact, no reason to consider this AfD has been given: it's not being claimed he doesn't meet WP:BIO, just that the article is about a homeless person and that somehow this lowers Wikipedia. I'll assume good faith, but I find MD1954's reasoning at the top there to be pretty insulting. --Dom 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatively Semi-Adequate Keep. This is not just any homeless person...he's on Wikipedia as an eccentric celebrity, and we have plenty of those that nobody deletes. Also, considering the grammatical and spelling errors you have made, you have not thought out this deletion thoroughly. The reason for deletion is weak.--Dch111 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all reasons posted above. - Axver 07:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if wiki has crim's why not have it. pwapwap 18.36 23 October 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD G11, pure advertising. Deizio talk 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

damaka[edit]

This article is for a non-notable company, and the article appears to be a sales pitch. Also Alexa has it a Traffic Rank for damaka.com: 943,998 . This in my mind makes it non-notable Andymarczak 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obvious spam, non-notable software. —ptk✰fgs 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 62300 Ghits may not be notable yet.--Jusjih 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an advertisement. If it wasn't there would be more information on the history and less about the features. - flipjargendy 15:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Traffic rank is not criteria for notability. Company has been written about in a number of publications and has customers in most of the major continents. Page has been edited to focus less on features and only one image remains which is standard for many company entries.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD A7, db-bio. Deizio talk 16:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun rice[edit]

Apparent vanity page of a non-notable person. Looks like nonsense; Google search seems to give nothing -- Tim D 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I proposed the article for deletion but the tag was removed by the creator (no explanation of course). Google shows nothing which clearly indicates that he never had a platinum-selling hit, as the article claims. Pascal.Tesson 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1140 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notable, but Ghits do not denote notability (nor do lack of Ghits denote non-notability). Ghits only denote current popularity, which is not the same thing as notability. --Charlene.fic 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balmoral middle school[edit]

Notability of this school not asserted. High schools I can understand as being inherently notable, but middle schools? Unless notability is established with verifiable references, I don't see the need to keep this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of minor schools. Contested prod, sent to AfD for a consensus one way or the other. For my part, Delete. Akradecki 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ugh what a horrible article. They must SHOUT A LOT at that school... :) delete. --Alex (Talk) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria for schools are WP:SCHOOL, and the criterion to focus upon is the first. The best way to tell whether a school satisfies this criterion is to look for sources and attempt to rewrite/improve the article. I looked. I couldn't find a single source. The only things that I could find were things like this, which is about Louisiana, not Ontario, and this, which is a set of figures used in an example of an XML-based language, which could be made up for the sake of example for all that we know. I couldn't find any press coverage, any independent inspection reports, or indeed anything at all. Even the web site alluded to in the article didn't exist.

    Coming, finally, to the web site of the Peel District School Board, this turned out to be unsurprising. There is no such school in the Peel district. There's Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. But this content is of no use to starting that article. Indeed, there's more information about that school in Peel District School Board than could be salvaged from this article. A worthwhile stub on that school would have to demonstrate with sources that there is more to say on the subject than what is already said in Peel District School Board.

    There's no point in trying to salvage anything from this. This content is unsourced, redundant to Peel District School Board, and useless. Delete. Uncle G 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is not notable even when using WP:SCHOOL it fails to make the grade. TheRanger 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unverified and completely unsalvageable article.--Isotope23 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the article should be allowed to improve by the efforts of interested editors, it is plain to see that the subject is notable, and I'm sure editors will be able to verify it. --ForbiddenWord 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Plain to see"? How? It clearly doesn't meet WP:SCHOOLS which is the closest thing to a guideline on WP. Wikipedia's academic reliability/reputation is hotly debated in the press, and one big reason for it is that many editors rely on their opinions or feelings as to what's notable, rather than conforming to established standards. Akradecki 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I do not think that WP:SCHOOLS is a reliable metric to use in the evaluation of school articles, as it excludes FAR too many schools from having independent articles about them. As such, I think that until such a time as a reliable measure for schools can be found, all nominations of them to AFD should be withdrawn. I don't think the nominators should be forced to apologize or any malice held against them, but it's mostly just a confusion on their part of their understanding of the importance of consensus at Wikipedia. --ForbiddenWord 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:SCHOOLS is an excellent metric, because it focuses discussion on sources. Looking for, reading, citing, evaluating, and using sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. As demonstrated above, employing WP:SCHOOLS leads one in short order to the fact that this school does not exist, and has never existed, because it requires one to actually research the subject of the article, rather than to recite dogma. When parroting dogma about inherent notability places one in the very embarrassing position of wanting to keep unverifiable articles with zero useful content, it is time to stop and consider how far astray from being an encyclopaedist simple recitation of dogma has taken one. (Patronizing nominators from such a position only makes it even more of an enbarrassing one to be in, by the way.) I suggest that you discard the dogma, and actually make the effort to research the subjects being nominated for deletion, on a case by case basis, as determining whether the WP:SCHOOLS criteria are not are not satisfied requires one to do. You are clearly replacing doing research with reciting dogma. As you can see from where that has got you, that's wrong. Uncle G 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not reciting dogma on this subject. What I am saying is that I think that any school, regardless of its nature or population, is notable. I agree that it should be verifiable, but I am not good at finding sources- this is why I mentioned, in my original comment, that the article should be kept until interested and more talented editors than I can find verifiable sources on the subject. I think your accusations of me parroting dogma are entirely unfounded: I feel very strongly on this subject and am unwilling to sit idly by and watch as articles on schools, one of Wikipedia's most precious resources, are deleted outright just because no one has found the proper sources yet. --ForbiddenWord 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You claim in your first sentence not to be reciting dogma, and then your second sentence is exactly such a recitation of dogma. If you think that this article is a "precious resource", then I suggest actually reading it. It's rubbish. Even had this school existed, this article would have required a complete rewrite from sources. If you think that this is a case of "no-one finding the proper sources" then you clearly have made no attempt to read the rationales given in this discussion. The proper sources have been found. They show that there is no such school. Your "strong feelings" are preventing you from being an encyclopaedist. Discard them, and start doing the research. Parroting dogma instead of doing research doesn't help to build an encyclopaedia. It isn't a valuable contribution. Uncle G 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I said isn't dogma. It is my opinion, however, that what I said is true, and it's an opinion shared by many Wikipedia users. I have done research and tried to find information on Google and other general searches, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't an official report by local government on the subject that I don't know how to get to, but some other user does. I think that wanting to keep an article like this is an act of good faith toward the other editors in the name of improving the encyclopedic project. --ForbiddenWord 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You clearly have not done research, or even read the discussion up until this point, otherwise you would have seen the official source that shows that there is no such school. Wanting to keep an article on a subject that isn't verifiable, and that has no useful content, isn't an act of good faith. It's preserving rubbish for the sake of dogma. It's worsening the encyclopaedia, not improving it. When dogma, which you are parroting, takes one to the point of making one speak in defense of rubbish and outright ignore verifiability and cited sources, then one has completely ceased to be an encylopaedist. Actively working towards including bad content in the project harms Wikipedia. It does not help it. Doing it "in the name of improving the encyclopedic project" does not change that one iota. Uncle G 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, well, the primary problem is that regardless of there are interested editors or not, this school absolutely fails verifiability. WP:V isn't a non-accepted guideline; it is policy and this article doesn't meet said policy. Furthermore, suggesting all AfD's of schools be withdrawn is not realistic. Even without WP:SCHOOL (which is non-accepted guideline and has about as much bearing as an essay in my opinion), the level of inclusion of school articles in Wikipedia is a contentious topic and based on the fact that there are people who want to keep every WP:V school and people who want to have school inclusion standards, there will never be consensus on this topic. School AfD's are a fact of life at Wikipedia. Regardless of that, WP:V is the basic cutoff that even the most ardent school inclusionists can agree must be fulfilled and this article does not meet that very basic criteria.--Isotope23 18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My response to Uncle G covers your objections about verifiability. Just because I cannot find one does not mean that the article should be deleted out of hand when another editor may very well come along and find a good reliable source for the article. --ForbiddenWord 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, yes it does... it's not just you that can't find a source here, nobody can. If someone finds a source then the article can be recreated, but we don't leave unverified articles laying around hoping someday, someone will come along and verify it. If something fails WP:V, and I don't mean that the article isn't sourced; I mean no sources exist for the article, then it needs to be deleted. If and when someone finds a source the article can always be recreated. That goes for every article on every subject on Wikipedia, not just schools. --Isotope23 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not necessarily the case- the {{verify}} tag exists for that very purpose, to encourage editors to go out and find sources for articles. --ForbiddenWord 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment, {{verify}} is fine if some of the information is not verified, but if the basic existence of the subject of the article cannot be verified after a good faith investigation, which Uncle G has done above, there is no reason to leave an article on Wikipedia indefinitely with the hope that this somehow gets verified. Interested parties have the run of the AfD to find a basic source for the existance of this school; if this can't be done it should be deleted as unverified and unverifiable.--Isotope23 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been looking for any thing to support that this is a real school, from the distict pages to city pages an nothing supports this is a real school! I would hope people are not supporting this with out reading article and doing a basic search for the school. TheRanger 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made some effort to find verifiable information on this school, but as I have said above, I am not good at finding sources. The reason I want the article kept is for other editors to be given the chance to expand and add to this article, giving it verifiable sources. The appropriate action in that case would be to tag the article with a verify tag, not delete it outright. --ForbiddenWord 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I feel it is clear from this page that several very strong editors have tried to souce this school even using the district site and it is not there. This school was likely placed as a joke. That being said do we cover this article as a hoax that was place on the internet on October 2006? The verify tag is not meet for the whole entry posted as a hoax, that is what the hoax tag is for and it is so taged. TheRanger 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The school is listed here [23]. The only sign of notability I could find is that the school is used in an example of GML on the w3 website. [24] DCEdwards1966 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article appears to be about Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. According to this page [25], the principal and vice principal listed in the article work here. DCEdwards1966 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mentioned Balmoral Drive Senior Public School in my rationale. Writing a decent stub on that school would involve starting again, from scratch, with enough sources to hand to show that there was more to be had on the subject than what is already present in Peel District School Board. (Otherwise a simple redirect would suffice.) This content is of no use in that regard. I found no evidence that this is an alternative name for that school, either. Uncle G 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for loads of reasons, but mainly 'cos it is totally non notable (and makes my eyes hurt reading it).... QuiteUnusual 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether an article is well written or poorly written , by a six-year old or a 40-year old, the subject must be notable. This is not. Montco 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation. I would hope that the students and faculty of this school would be embarrassed to see the current version of the article in the edit history. A higher-quality article can be created at a later time. --Metropolitan90 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will admit that I look at the underlying articles for each of these school AfDs hoping to find as much as I can to justify retaining an article. I don't think this is a hoax, and as DCEdwards1966 and others have divined, I'm sure that it is supposed to be an article for Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. But, I don't see anything here that can justify creating a useable article worth retaining at this point. Hopefully, we can see a workable shell, if not a truly-functional article, for this school to be recreated at some point in the future. Alansohn 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO SALVAGE AND THE CONTENT IS NOT VERIFIABLE. BAHN MI 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Catchpole 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Due to the article content, rather than the school. — RJH (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eyesore and probably nn. Beno1000 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the time comes a better article can be written about this school, but there is not reason to retain what we currently have here. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 October 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiq al-Rasul[edit]

This article, initially created on 27 September 2006 by User:Aashiq al-rasul (contribs), and later contributed to by User:Aashiq al-Rasul (contribs) (different capitalization), has since that time not been provided with any references to back up the claims of notability. An appeal to provide said references on the author's talk page (and a caution on the WP:AUTO guidelines) yielded no further improvements to the article. In addition, wikilinks to this article were added to articles on nasheed, hamd and Islamic music. This seems like potential mild WP:SPAM, although well-intentioned and nowhere near as bad as most of the ones that come through here. A google search trivially shows that their CD's are sold in Islamic music stores, but brings up no third-party reliable sources that can confirm the "claims to fame" made in the article. It thus fails WP:MUSIC. Deleted unless verified by third-party reliable sources. Zunaid 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (not a deletion rationale) The two user accounts created have NO edits other than those related to this article. It appears that the accounts were created purely for the purpose of creating this article, and not for the general purpose of contributing to Wikipedia as a whole. Zunaid 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cites are added before this AfD closes. It's easy for a band to make up glorified claims. Verifiability is what WP needs to maintain credibility. Akradecki 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing of note here. Vanity. Deizio talk 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — They seem to be an actual band, though how notable is a problem to say. Until there are sources provided about this band, as per other user requests, I will vote in the delete camp. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the main AdventureQuest article, as notability of the game was not contested, and delete the remaining sub-pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdventureQuest[edit]

Non-notable online game and associated concepts. Also nominated:

Game itself fails WP:WEB, though alexa rank of 1656 isn't far off inclusion; but the concept articles are definitely non-notable. Percy Snoodle 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the in-game stuff, Abstain the game itself; ten minutes of poking through Google + ten minutes of poking the website yields zero decent secondary sources. Nifboy 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all secondary articles, Weak Keep main game article. The game itself is surprisingly popular for how mediocre and simplistic it seems. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of main game is an unreferenced walkthrough with zero context about importance, popularity etc save for section on "criticism". It probably has just about enough popularity to stay but without verification and references I'll abstain. Strong Delete on the sub-pages, at most worthy of mentions in main article. Deizio talk 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article, Delete subarticles, per everyone and their brother. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article, Strong delete all minor articles. The main game itself is fairly notable, but the article is in need of major fancruft clean up. The secondary articles are not needed at all, since they have very little to mention, and are covered in the main article. Again, the game itself is notable, having many advertisments strewn throughout many popular websites and a large player base. SnufStyle420 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article. It is very popular. Delete the subarticles. Unless they can be merged. Wootking Tom 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AdventureQuest, which is clearly famous enough for most purposes. Delete the rest of the here nominated articles, which aren't. AfD isn't cleanup; I agree the main article has problems, but that's not what AfD is for if it otherwise is notable enough. Plus, this is a web-based game rather than an ordinary website; we should also consider WP:SOFTWARE in this case. AQ is Artix Entertainment's most important product, I believe it satisfies that bit. As for other articles, that's just gamecruft - best be merged somewhere if that's really really really useful, which I doubt. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article, we can always relocate the other articles onto the main page.

Glenn Browne 11:37, 19 October 2006 (ITC)

  • Strong Keep AdventureQuest, speedy delete sub-articles as fancruft. AdventureQuest is definitely notable. Besides an Alexa ranking of 1656, the word "battleon" (a common name for AdventureQuest) has 367 kilogoogles, and the word "adventurequest" has 161 kilogoogles. This game is evidently very popular in Singapore; I frequently see kids play it at Internet cafes. I know the article contains too much fancruft; I'm currently working on re-writing it and replacing fancruft with encyclopediac content. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain on Adventure Quest, Strong Delete child pages. I loathe this pathetic attempt at a game so I'd better not vote on the main article, but it's nowhere near known enough to earn subpages. GarrettTalk 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AdventureQuest and purge the spin-off pages as necessary, Derktar 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep the main page and Delete the rest for the pretty much the same reasons everyone else is giving. The Kinslayer 09:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand what the deletion spree is all about. There is not a definable necessity, other than perhaps server space or purposeful omission, to leave information out of the world's largest encyclopedia. There is no need for a society of aristocratic admins to purge articles which they have no interest in, or to which they may see little value but many others do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.0.29.254 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep AdventureQuest delete the rest. AQ has normally 20k people playing all the time no way this game is NN. Slap a cleanup and sources needed on page and go. Whispering 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article for people who've never played and have no one to tell them what it's like so that they can see if they like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.149.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep for AdventureQuest for all of the reasons listed above and for the fact that the sheer amount of vandalism this page recieves weekly indicates that it is recieving a large number of hits by the Wikipedia community. Given the fact that this game will feature shortly in an episode of WifeSwap on ABC we can likely expect even more hits in the near future. As for the fancruft. Let it burn. I have already been in the habit of nominating similiar articles for deletion and encouraging their removal. I should however note for honesty's sake that my vote for the game is prejudiced by the fact that I am staff for its community forums. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 08:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thumbs[edit]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about current music, but the number of red links in this article make me suspicious of this band. The fact that the sole source of reference given is their webpage doesn't help. This fails WP:V for lack of WP:RS; also fails WP:MUSIC. Music-knowledge people are free to tell me I'm clueless here, but we do need reliable sources, no matter what. Delete. Xoloz 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article has a good stab at establishing notability but without verification and references, it fails WP:MUSIC which means delete. I'm sure someone out there can bring this up to scratch if it the article rings true. Deizio talk 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If tour and album releases can be verified (will take a look myself later). PT (s-s-s-s) 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to now... looks like Dbress covered it! PT (s-s-s-s) 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some links to help verify credibility. Won't find any links to them on Adeline's site since the label was sold, and the new owners only wanted to keep the popular acts. In the future, should I tag new articles as a stub so that it isn't suspect for deletion so quickly? --Dbress 18:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article greatly improved since the start of the AFD. Good work, yo. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beyince[edit]

NN-girlfriend of notable person, NN-cousin of notable person delete DesertSky85451 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability is not genetic nor sexually transmissible. Subject fails WP:BIO. Deizio talk 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's AllMusic. Here's a largely empty IMDB listing. AllMusic only records that this person co-authored some songs. Wikipedia already records the fact that this person co-authored some songs, in the articles about those songs. See Dangerously in Love#Track_listing, for example. Uncle G 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject passes WP:MUSIC. Commenting on her sexuality is inappropriate. hateless 17:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Hateless. The first criterion for "composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists" is "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above..." Since Ms. Beyince has written numerous songs for both Beyoncé Knowles and Destiny's Child ("Bad Habit", "Be With You", "Check On It", "Get Me Bodied", "Girl", "Love", "Naughty Girl", "Speechless", "T-Shirt", "Upgrade U", and "Why U Actin'"), she pretty clearly meets this guideline. I don't know about the others, but "Naughty Girl" was #1 on several different Billboard charts.[26] Honestly, I think this music is pretty much crap, but that doesn't mean that it isn't notable crap. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Passes criteria of WP:MUSIC as noted by User:Hit bull, win steak. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miojo do Mal, O (film)[edit]

Zero budget short film, apparently never released anywhere besides youtube and "a bootleg dvd", no claim of notability in the article. Article was apparently started by the film's creator (User:Jadir), no sources, 15 hits on google (including wikipedia). - Bobet 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. 8 dollars for budget?! --Húsönd 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about a fake video on youtube. Storm05 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India. KrakatoaKatie 08:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental duties of india[edit]

Poorly written listcruft. Could possibly be merged with India. --Alex (Talk) 15:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wishsides[edit]

Spinefarm Records contacted Wikimedia Foundation to inform this compilation is a bootleg. Nominating for deletion based in Angel's Dream, Bless the Century Child, Mysteries and Mysteries vol. 2 precedents. -- ReyBrujo 16:00, 18 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, ReyBrujo 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ross (DJ)[edit]

Unreferenced article about local radio sports commentator. No evidence of compliance with WP:BLP or WP:BIO. Deizio talk 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revive (Steadman album)[edit]

Album that did not chart. De-prodded. All the information in this article can already be found in Steadman. Catchpole 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant. Parent article contains all this and more. Deizio talk 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Steadman. The nature of the Steadman article renders this one pretty much useless, and I don't see any real reason to split the content out of that article yet; however, I think it is reasonable to have this as a redirect to that content. GassyGuy 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it didn't chart, it was a Creative Commons release. Strong keep, to keep the consistency of the Steadman discography and because the general practice is that albums get articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to their article they only released the album on Creative Commons in 2005, presumably after they were dropped by Elektra. Catchpole 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I wish more bands did that. Regardless, my recommendation still stands due to prior practice and discography consistency. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a standalone. If anything, the dupliacte info should be removed from the parent article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Snoutwood (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Celtic[edit]

Dictionary definition, only one link (from Ireland) SkerHawx 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment redirecting to Ireland would make it a self-redirect. --Limetom 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inaccurate context-free dicdef. Do not redirect to Ireland. Given the broad disagreement on the origins and spread of Celtic languages, I don't see that there is an obvious redirect candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand As it is, the article is not much, but the term Pre-Celtic is a very commonly used term in History and Archaeology (and in general). There must be something on Wikipedia about the term, as it appears in many articles, and if there is no article to link to, many people will be unaware of the meaning of the term or it's common use. --Hibernian 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pre-Celtic is a throw away term. Actual references are to things like the Beaker culture. Bejnar 03:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKweatherworld[edit]

Contested prod, does not follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Tim! 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been edited as per the Notability (web) guidelines, and is not on Wikipedia for the purpose of anything apart from telling people what we do as an organisation. User:Dave Clarke 18:20, 18 October 2006 (BST)

It's not really close to the guidelines at :WEB, for that you need at least one of;
  • Major media coverage (with links)
  • A recognized, independent award (with verification)
  • The site to be hosted and distributed by a major site / provider
Nobody is judging its value to its members, it doesn't hit encyclopedic as defined on WP. Deizio talk 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB — I'm sure it's a great forum, but it is not notable. —ptk✰fgs 18:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn forum. Deizio talk 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - will point people to a place where they can discuss weather Pflatau 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - not notable, but an be added as an external link if people wish to discuss weather, as can "netweather.tv" if so required/desired. Alternatively, could feature in a section of an article on weather disscussion forums or similar. Crimsone 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SUBPAGIFY. I'll just move this to a subpage of Deus Ex: Invisible War and link it from the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons in Deus Ex: Invisible War[edit]

Merger has not been completed in a timely manner and the content is blatantly game guide, does not meet criteria per WP:NOT. ~ Combination 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, crufty cruft. Wikipedia is not a walkthrough. —ptk✰fgs 17:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Keep - just give some time. The other one was cleaned and merged, this one is going to be as well. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace for merge - Per above. Move to CP\M's (or someone else who wants it) userspace for future merge, its been in the article space long enough. Wickethewok 18:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of esoteric programming languages[edit]

This list should be deleted because is consist mainly of external links to "specifications" of esoteric programming languages of which a large number already have had their article deleted. A similar list is already available at the Esolang Wiki. —Ruud 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Ruud 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak delete sad to see it go (if only for BANCStar), but it does appear to be listcruft, and an external link to the Esolang wiki from Esoteric programming language would serve us well enough. —ptk✰fgs 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ironically the BANCstar entry is not included at the Esolang Wiki because they did not consider it to be an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spammy. The languages we have articles for are better organized by the category anyway. Punkmorten 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune the list of any languages that do not merit articles. If redlinks still remain after that process, keep, because an alphabetical list that indicates topics that Wikipedia should cover but does not yet provides more information than a category alone would. Postdlf 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All notable and borderline-notable esoteric programming languages already have articles (see Category:Esoteric programming languages.) The redlinks currenty in the list are of articles which have been deleted in the last few weeks (a majority of the articles on esoteric programming languages have been deleted; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages), the externals link point to articles which either have been deleted a longer time ago or are highly non-notable as established by previous deletion debates. —Ruud 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So remove all of the external and redlinks, and I'll watch to see if that change sticks in the list article. Postdlf 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The article has been pruned due to the above comment; the original version is here. --ais523 07:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok, delete now that the list serves no function beyond the category. Postdlf 14:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the revised version is exactly the same as the category and I don't see what purpose it serves. —ptk✰fgs 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you delete this, you will need to find another example for Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_as_a_reason_for_merging. --Sbluen 20:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junioritis[edit]

Was this just made up? FlareNUKE 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no delete opinions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PocketMail[edit]

Prod was ripe. Wasn't sure about deletion since there are lots of Google hits and I have heard of the thing myself. Notability is the concern. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quite a widely used product/service in several countries. Let's see later if it still deserves a mention in the enduring history of PDAs and everything else. Mereda 14:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AARP reviewed it (although the link to their site is now down). There's a full list of media references (albeit old) here. It seems like it is sufficiently notable among the elderly to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Alphachimp 15:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable speedbump along the information super highway. Someone will likely want to know about it sometime, and Wikipedia may likely be the place that they look. youngamerican (yo) 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-corp. Deizio talk 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Marine[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, and there is no other indication of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Definitely fails WP:CORP and it gets pretty spammish in the third sentence. —ptk✰fgs 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP and somewhat spammy. Hello32020 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John budde[edit]

Not Notable / Vanity / WP:BIO Harvestdancer 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't appear notable. Text of article appears to have been copied from [27]. DCEdwards1966 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Notability--Tony 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of major philosophers[edit]

Inherently POV. The Manual of Style tells us "do not use a title like (...) famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs". And for good reason; titles like that will lead to POV disputes, as the history of this list illustrates. To solve the problem a methodology of inclusion has been constructed, and now the article describes its bias at the top of the page. Stating POV is nice, but not good enough. Wikipedia articles and lists should be NPOV, which I think this one will never be. N.B. When this article was nominated for deletion before, on June 8, its title was simply "List of Philosophers" - it was moved later, on June 14. Skarioffszky 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, inherently not NPOV. Lists of philosophers is the policy-acceptable version of the list (or lists). hateless 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, list may be biased, but the community is working diligently and making progress to keep it NPOV by consensus - similar to the list of political philosophers. It is a very useful list, and would be a shame to remove it. - Sam 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last post was 10 days ago. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - previous AfD deletion shows that it was not named "List of philosphers" at the time. Why has this been nominated again when six months ago the result was keep? - Sam 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved on June 14, just before the AfD was closed: see [28], [29]. But most of the discussion took place earlier, and was about a "List of Philosophers". Skarioffszky 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. Thanks. - Sam 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless most of the content of the previous nomination appears to discuss the "major philosopher" point; so arguably it's already been treated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.21.111 (talk) .
Perhaps, but the new title certainly highlights the POV problems. Anyway, there is no rule against re-nominating an article for deletion. On the contrary. That's why there is an AfD template for a second (or third, or fourth) nomination. Skarioffszky 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDiscussion this month at Talk:List of major philosophers#More "fours" seemed to come down to two viable options for the list article: 1) delete the list or 4) keep the list and expand the criteria to eliminate biases. Most of the non-archived talk is about criteria expansion. This is a portion of a longer conversation that has been going on at least since the last AFD. Nobody is operating on the talk page with a great sense of urgency (folks interested in philosophy generally like discussion, gee...). I'd rejected the idea of doing a nomination myself earlier today because I wanted to give it more time. But now that we have a nomination, I want to see what the wider community thinks. A lot of the trouble, as discussed in the first AFD, has originated with those that want Rand included as a major philosopher. But that the issues come from those pushing a particular and unusual POV doesn't mean we should have the list. GRBerry 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have Lists of philosophers which should have everyone on List of major philosophers in it. T REXspeak 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I think progress could be made to improve the POV problem, the Manual of Style point is hard to argue with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The hanged man (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, Ambiguity in the term 'Major' is unlikely to be resolved. The other possibility is to rename the list something like, "List of most referenced philosophers by the Analytic philosophy community." SteveWolfer 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portage path elementary[edit]

Tagged PROD for 5 days, however, the tag was removed on the last day before an Admin got there. Unfortunately, the editor who removed the tag has not added any new content, or indeed, shown any evidence that the school is notable in any way. Since I can't jut re-list for PROD, I'm bringing it here.}} ♠PMC♠ 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. One sentence school stub. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. —ptk✰fgs 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable secondary sources. We don't compromise notability in this case. —ptk✰fgs 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. This school, like many schools, is undeniably important to its community. --ForbiddenWord 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and yet, whilst you vote to expand, as the nominator pointed out, you didn't do any work to actually expand it at all. Please stop voting and start doing research. Uncle G 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet, because of my actions, the school (through the work of another editor) has been expanded to a good level. The work of stopping articles from being prematurely deleted is not trivial as you would have me think. I am trying to accurately reflect community consensus, and try to allow school articles be improved rather than deleted, and all that I have to show for it is other editors picking apart my rationale. The above just shows that letting articles exist, rather than deleting them, is valuable. --ForbiddenWord 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, it is exceedingly presumptious of you to claim any credit for anything here. You have zero credit here. You did, and continue to have done, nothing. You cited no sources. You provided no content. The article as currently written could have been as equally created from a redlink as from the 9 words that it contained at the time of nomination. You aren't improving the encyclopaedia in the slightest, and have contributed nothing at all towards its improvement by your actions here. You aren't doing any work at all here, trivial or otherwise. You did zero work here. In fact, your actions are the direct causes of extra, unnecessary, work. Had you done any work at all at the time of prodding, the article may not even have been brought to AFD in the first place (per the nomination). But you didn't do a single iota of work, and hence all of this extra time and effort expent on the parts of other editors, as a consequence of your just doing nothing, has resulted. Uncle G 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero google hits, importance to community is not an assetion of notability and the entire article is a single sentence asserting that the school exists and is an elementary school. JoshuaZ 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I obtained rather more than zero, as you can see. Uncle G 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable elementary school. DCEdwards1966 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable elementary school. TheRanger 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to assert any notability, fails proposed WP:SCHOOLS, does not cite any sources and therefore fails WP:V. Akradecki 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - now that's how to salvage an article. ForbiddenWord: take a lesson from this - you don't save articles by falsely claiming that there's consensus, or by intimidating editors by saying that their noms are useless. You do it by doing the hard work, the research to actually make the article better. You do that, and then folks like me will change our "votes". Akradecki 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is more than a sentence now, and cites five sources: a government report, a database of the school's demographics and test scores, and three separate magazine/news feature articles about this particular school's educational/development programmes and use of computers — all of which are from sources independent of the school itself. It even links to more source material not used by the article. Per the references and further reading sections of the article (q.v.), it satisfies the primary criterion of WP:SCHOOL. Keep. Uncle G 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will the closing admin please rename the article to conform the title to proper use of caps? Thanks! Akradecki 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability has not been demonstrated. I don't think that any of the sources provided by Uncle G show notability. First, as to the government report: Generally, the existence of non-trivial third-party coverage of a subject shows notability of that subject because it shows that the outside world (represented by the publishers of the source) deems the subject notable. However, a government report about a school is not published because anyone deems the school notable, it's published because government schools are accountable to the public. So a government report does not show notability. (Yes, this conclusion is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, which explicitly blesses "schools inspection agencies," but WP:SCHOOL does not enjoy consensus approval.) Second, as to the database of the school's demographics and test scores: this is a trivial source, like similar reports on local restaurants. Third, as to the source titled "Teaching Technology To Kids": that report is not, primarily, about this school, which merely serves as an example (along with at least one other) of a school using technology in the classroom. The existence of that report doesn't show notability of the school, it shows notability of the topic of Instructional technology, which as you can see we have an article on already. Fourth, the other two sources (that I can access--the link to the third is down) are local and as such are not sufficient to show notability (otherwise we'd be keeping lots of articles about local businesses, which are featured in local papers all the time). Pan Dan 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — This article can be used as a seed for the Akron City School District. Otherwise keep. — RJH (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Hey, now there's an idea I could agree with. School districts are notable. ♠PMC♠ 08:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district. No evidence of this being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a result of the excellent expansion work by Uncle G. Silensor 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per edits made by uncle g this appears notable Yuckfoo 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PanDan. Just an elementary school that uses computers. Catchpole 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G's rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Modern Toss. Deizio talk 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan (Modern Toss)[edit]

Article topic is adequately covered by the main Modern Toss article - this seperate page is completely unnecessary. Rob W 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Polkingharn[edit]

Non-notable person. His only claim to fame is being Eminem's uncle, and being mentioned in a few songs. TJ Spyke 18:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:BIO. Hello32020 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely agree with the above. HamishMacBeth 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons mentioned already. -Amatulic 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE IT. This person was a significant influence on one of the most successful artists in the history of popular music. The article contains information that the main Eminem article does not contain, information that a committed Eminem fan would find significant. Personally, I have always wondered why Eminem always wears the same dog tags in every photo and video and that article answered that question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.154.246 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge/Redirect to Eminem/Marshall Mathers. Catchpole 07:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Eminem, per Catchpole. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-web. Deizio talk 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Boarding School (Roleplay)[edit]

Non-notable game (says there are only 57 users), fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. Gogo Dodo 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Baron[edit]

Very likely a vanity article. Does make some unsourced claims of notability, so I am bringing it here rather than prodding it. Recommend deletion/userfy. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unreferenced, unverified, possible vanity. Deizio talk 20:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far to many articles on Wikipedia about non-notable people. -Amatulic 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Marc Baron's growing contribution to theatre in NYC is worth watching. -User:Ginibelle 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Ginibelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Iran-Iraq War[edit]

This page is not about opposition to the Iran-Iraq war but rather about why it was bad. It violates NPOV and contains original research about that. The only statement about opposition to the war (this is cited with a source) is a quote that "large numbers of Iraqis" opposed the war. Unless someone has any real information for this article, so it can be completely rewritten, it should be deleted. LittleDantalk 17:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR, POV, and, the main problem, there's really nothing here about opposition to the war, just a bunch of mainly anecdotal reports on draft-dodgers and deserters. Trying to stay alive is not the same thing as opposition to the war. Fan-1967 17:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deserting, fleeing, and hiding are acts of opposition. If one wants to protest, then it get beaten the heck out of it, killed, or tortured in Iran. There are both sources and external links for further reading.
If you believe that there was no opposition and people thought the war was a boon, then add your sources and alternative approach.--Patchouli 19:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed that there was no opposition, but your article has not cited any. Check out every other article in the anti-war category. There are descriptions of demonstrations, speeches, press articles. That's opposition. None of that here. Let's face it, both Iran and Iraq used their draftees as disposable cannon fodder. Deserting or evading was not "opposition"; it was survival. Fan-1967 19:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly our point of disagreement as I believe "Deserting, fleeing, and hiding are acts of opposition," much like boycotting something or a strike.--Patchouli 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true if you could provide verification from reliable sources that these acts of desertion and evasion were motivated by opposition to the war, but there are no citations to support that. Given the casualty rates on both sides, deserting and evading seem like perfectly logical actions. Fan-1967 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because of the concept of the page, but because of it's current poor quality. Not much substance and citations relating to the topic name itself. Deet 00:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Opposition/Criticism pages should be about a verifiable phenomenon of people criticizing something, which this page is not, and they are only needed when including the same material in the main article would make it too long. And of course, WP is not a soapbox for editor advocacy against any government. Gazpacho 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War

  • Delete. Per everyone. --Mardavich 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Lacks any kind of encyclopedic value. - Marmoulak 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per everyone else.Khosrow II 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can easily believe that an article could be written on this topic. This article, however, doesn't begin to cover the topic in an encyclopedic way. --Richard 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War

  • Delete or perhaps Merge with Iran-Iraq War, this line "The Islamic Republic also is reported to have aplied unparalleled methods to intimidate fleeing military personnel" is just silly, check out SMERSH and Order № 227, deserters from the American Civil War were branded with a letter "C" on the cheek to show that they were cowards. As per above this is survival not opposition. L0b0t 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The SMERSH article doesn't say anything about pursuing deserter to entirely foreign nations to murder them as Iran sent agents to Switzerland.--Patchouli 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel Osmond[edit]

I am pretty sure this person is not notable. MrFishGo Fish 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, but article could use some expansion. 56 films is not enough for WP:PORN, but I might be persuaded if more is added to this article. Wildthing61476 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but send her round here to be consoled. Deizio talk 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Keep if it can be shown that she made a "notable" film (something other than the pulp stuff her industry cranks out), or if she has appeared in a notable number of films. -Amatulic 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or delete all under her category. What's so different about this person as oppossed to all the other women listed under the category of bondage models. They all look the same to me. Either keep it, or get rid of the whole category and its contents.--7seconds 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - User's first edit. Deizio talk 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi 7seconds, welcome to Wikipedia. Articles are not eligible to be kept just because similar articles exist on Wikipedia. Articles about individuals should comply with WP:BIO and WP:BLP (in this case WP:PORN can also be considered), keep votes may be discounted by the closing admin if they fail to address those guidelines. Alternatively, if you see an article about a non-notable individual anywhere on Wikipedia, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Give me a shout on my talk page if you want to know more. Deizio talk 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Us Versus Them (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. See the article's talk page where the author of the article (and head of the band) explains the band further. They have had releases with "moderate success" on MP3.com and have been played several times on a local radio station. They have played Boston-area clubs. Does any of this meet WP:MUSIC? Metros232 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't supposed to serve as someone's surrogate web page. -Amatulic 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even close to notable as it stands. Nuttah68 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and, per Last.fm and Google, the band doesn't have a notable underground fan base either. Prolog 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, not worth debating. Punkmorten 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ukash[edit]

Something doesn't look right here. I came across this while on NP patrol, and I noticed that the article was copied directly from a Wikipedia article, header and [edit] text included. A Google search seems to indicate that this person does not exist; I'm guessing that whoever created this copied it from another article and replaced all instances of the person's name. --Spring Rubber 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Is it about a person? Is it about a company? Is it spam? Can we speedy delete it under CSD A1 for being unsalvageably incoherent? -- Hawaiian717 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional bug-eyed characters[edit]

Completly subjective and POV page. Category for this topic was already deleted then turned into a list.

  • Delete Even if there is a way to objectively define which characters were to belong, collecting characters with this trait has little to no encyclopaedic value. GassyGuy 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Deizio talk 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one who nominated the original category for deletion. According to the creator of this article, bug eyes are defined as solid black eyes since Sakura Haruno called Rock Lee "bug-eyed" in an episode of the English dub. With this criteria, just about every American animated character is bug-eyed. Danny Lilithborne 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthstronaut[edit]

Unbalanced description of a made-up word —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revontuli (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO. Made-up word, practically no currency. (Most of the 34 google hits are Wiki mirrors or irrelevant.) -- Fan-1967 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Daniel Olsen 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. I got a whopping 96 Google hits.[30] EVula 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, surely? Dave 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Freeland[edit]

No evidence of verifiability given in the article. Google search for "Donald Freeland" + jeans gets about 53 hits [31] with almost all being Wiki mirrors. Metros232 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it can't be verified, it doesn't belong here. RedRollerskate 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -Amatulic 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. depernomnonnotablebye --DragonWR12LB 04:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability 4.18GB 12:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humans reborn[edit]

Googling suggests this book is self-published; I can find nothing except for forum posts by the author and similar amateurish promotion. It's not available on Amazon, which usually even has books from vanity presses. And it fails Geogre's Law. —Cryptic 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an advertisement. -Amatulic 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "A special edition will go on sale in the Spring with fixed spelling/grammar errors." No further comment necessary. NawlinWiki 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, redirect to The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3. Deizio talk 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MacDonald Brothers[edit]

Non-notable unsigned band, contestants in a television show that has not yet finished. jd || talk || 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2 of the other contestants on the show have articles, what makes this group any different? Martin Le Roy 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found it. No need to bother actually, withdraw nomination. I'm going to change it to a redirect to the relevant season's article. jd || talk || 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Five[edit]

Delete. An interesting concept that does not, in fact, exist: [32], [33]. (Yes, yes, I know Google isn't all-knowing, but it'd pick this up somewhere.) -Splash - tk 22:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism or protologism per WP:NEO. hateless 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fact that they interview all prospective students" - This isn't true. In the UK only Oxbridge interview ALL prospective students. Further, as stated on their website, LSE only interview in exceptional circumstances...Anyway I've never heard of this term either, it sounds made up. Delete. User:Disillusioned-
  • Delete, original research. -- nae'blis 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. —anskas 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtudyne[edit]

Fictional company which has only one source. Daily WTF stories are not notable in themselves. Fagstein 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with The Daily WTF (although that article has questionable value as well). In any case, Virtudyne to be notable on its own. -Amatulic 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike the simdesk article, I'm afraid I don't see how to turn this article into something that qualifies for being in the wikipedia. It is not notable. Wrs1864 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent and not notable. Gazpacho 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stuff that was in a website last week or so, no matter how funny, doesn't usually exactly equal Good Article Topic. (Yeah, I'm a fan of TheDailyWTF. No, I still don't think random bits of fun = good topic. Maybe if they could set up PaulaWiki, the Official TDWTF Extended Universe Wiki for this sort of stuff...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, brillant prose but unverifiable, non-notable, forumcruft, and original research —ptk✰fgs 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while the The Daily WTF is pretty fun stuff and notable it self, individual articles are not notable encyclopædic content. --Sindri 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Redirected back to Master of Business Administration, editorial decisions can be discussed at Talk:Master of Business Administration. trialsanderrors 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Rankings[edit]

Delete. There are multiple concerns regarding this article:

  1. If you remove the lists of rankings (which are duplicated from the Financial Times web site), you're left with a nearly verbatim copy of the Rankings section in the Master of Business Administration article. This seems like needless duplication.
  2. The prose contradicts need for ranked lists of schools within the article.
  3. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote the opinions (i.e. rankings) of one source. The original MBA article already provides external links to online MBA rankings from multiple sources, including from Financial Times.
  4. The prose already fits well in the MBA article and doesn't really need expanding. It hardly seems worth creating a whole new article around this section, if the only purpose is to regurgitate (and maintain) annual rankings already available online. -Amatulic 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per recommendation below.

  • Delete, inherently non-NPOV. hateless 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine with merge without the actual rankings (as edited). hateless 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Keep as acceptable content fork (i.e. not a POV fork). The topic itself is certainly notable, pages and pages have been filled about the MBA rankings controversy, and it isn't really central to the MBA article, which should be about the degree itself. So I propose to remove most of the text on rankings from the MBA article and post it here. Btw, I removed the rankings as copyvios. ~ trialsanderrors 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought of that too before I proposed this AfD, but after much thought I felt that the MBA Ranking section's short length wasn't worth its own separate article. It fits better with the MBA article because anyone looking for MBA ranking information would first look for it there. You're correct that much has been written about this topic, but it's sufficient and proper for such a volume of information to be referenced as citations (which has already been done) rather than expand the article to duplicate what's already written elsewhere. -Amatulic 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough. I guess a redirect would serve this purpose better then. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to MBA. Abstain for the moment. (Also I changed "keep" above to "redirect" per trialsanderrors latest comment.) I'm the author of the original text about rankings in the Master of Business Administration article. I admit it bothered me to see my work copied and pasted to a new MBA Rankings article and then slanted to favor Financial Times. I had considered creating a different article myself, but in the end I decided the MBA article was a better fit, for reasons described by others above. On the other hand, I don't object to the existence of the MBA Rankings article. I do object to having near-verbatim paragraphs in two places; one of them must go. I presently lean toward keeping it in the MBA article and redirecting MBA Rankings to it as trialsanderrors suggests. =Axlq 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it should be in one spot. I think there are reasons to farm it out, since users searching for "MBA rankings" are probably familiar with the general info on the degree and are looking for specific information. As long as the article provides an encyclopedic rundown of the topic we should be home free. I also suggest withdrawing this nomination and leave the decision up to the editors of the article. I don't see an actual rationale for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It should be on the MBA page, especially since the rankings are so central to the topic. The rankings themselves are in the public domain seem to be fair use, however there's a real duty to explain both views of the pros and cons of rankings in themselves, as well as setting schools on a ladder. --Duncan 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rankings are usually copyrighted (there is no need for fair use of they're in the public domain). I think partial explanatory listings of multiple rankings are acceptable, especially if the purpose is educational, e.g. comparison of methods and outcomes. Why is Stanford #1 in ranking A and #37 in ranking B. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I thought I addressed that question in the article; those issues are dealt with pretty well in the referenced sources. The primary reasons for differences is that different publications use different populations of schools, and some rankings are based on subjective opinions given in interviews with alumni and hiring managers. I'll re-check and edit as appropriate. =Axlq 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This wasn't a criticism of your edits, just a general comment on when it is appropriate to use the actual rankings in the article from a coipyright law perspective. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay everyone, I'm new at this deletion process, so help me out. This was my first-ever nomination. If the consensus is "redirect" back to MBA (which to me sounds the same as "delete the MBA Rankings article and redirect the title to Master of Business Administration", then that's simple enough. But how do I witdraw this nomination before it has run its 5-day course? -Amatulic 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just strike out the nomination (Using <s> and </s>) and write "withdrawn" below it. You can technically also close it yourself but I can take care of it if you're not comfortable with it. There's also a technical difference between "redirect" and "delete and redirect" as in the second case the edit history gets deleted. I don't see a reason for that here though. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know "delete" meant "delete the whole history". Nomination is withdrawn. -Amatulic 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beck's prime[edit]

advert for NN- Houston resturant chain,no assertion of notability delete DesertSky85451 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I speedied this as WP:CSD G11 - advert, but noticed the cry for help on the talk page and brought it back.. but it's still an unreferenced ad for a burger joint. Deizio talk 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ordinary small-scale food business with little press coverage. It doesn't have a unique angle like Orwasher's bakery and it's nowhere near meeting WP:CORP. --Mereda 15:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is difficult to see how an encyclopedia article may be written on the subject. —Encephalon 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem notable Hut 8.5 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansai Christian School[edit]

Article asserts no notability, provides no references. Without references, it fails WP:V which states such material may be removed. Fails proposed WP:SCHOOLS. Borderline NPOV. Was prodded, prod removed by user who removes prods on any and all schools. Akradecki 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can find only one real page about it (here), but there isn't enough to write an article. Additionally, the supposed official site of the school is 404. I say "supposed" because I can only find links to the page, but the page doesn't exist. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Changed, see below. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of all possible keeps. The trend seems to be for high schools to be listed, as long as it is not overtly POV. International schools are also notable under criteria 4 of WP:SCHOOL. This school certainly existed at one point (in addition to the page cited above, I found an obituary of a former teacher which mentioned his time there, along with a few other non-directory passages). I can't find proof that the school still exists; but, that's not a critical fact (WP exists not only to document 2006, but years before). The article needs some major clean-up, though. Neier 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least as long as (i) the article alleges without good evidence that The ratio of the teachers to students is very small, and (ii) the article doesn't give the Japanese name, by which one may google for more evidence. -- Hoary 02:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of lack of content and references. A full-blown article with references would warrant a keep. --Richard 05:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a school. It's in Japan. It has teachers and pupils and stuff, and they learn about God! Okay, that does make it slightly different from most Japanese schools (which also have teachers and pupils, but don't give God so much time), but I see nothing to suggest that it is actually of momentous significance in the history of education, which should be our criterion for including schools, even if the lack of a lower age limit for editors has led to rampant cruft. — Haeleth Talk 08:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. Catchpole 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, geez I guess the schoolwatch crowd only cares about American schools. Montco 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kana: 関西クリスチャンスクール Archive.org has an old version of the school's webpage which may or may not be a reference. I personally feel that all articles should have secondary and tertiary references to exist. --Kunzite 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this link could be used as a secondary reference to the school. So, I change to Keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be many references available on this school, some of which are on archive.org. I will be expanding and reshaping this article over the next few days as time permits. Silensor 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you do, drop a note back here, and I'll consider withdrawing the nom. Akradecki 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not an overwhelming consensus, but the keep side is self-described as weak and hinges on the article's potential rather than its present state - and this AfD doesn't prejudice against someone writing a better article in its place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massage school[edit]

Contested prod, so sending to AfD. Not really an encyclopedia article, no sources or refs. Akradecki 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or Merge with massage. It could be a valid topic for an encyclopedia article, and in its current state it's a stub. Needs expanding and wikifying. -Amatulic 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons specified by Akradecki and because the article is just... Stupid-sounding.--70.240.15.87 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Borders on the "not a dictionary" argument. Completely unreferenced. --Nehwyn 04:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think we could have an article about this type of school. I'm just not sure that this article is the one we need. Vegaswikian 07:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Brian Kennedy (CIA Agent)[edit]

A man who, at 24 years old, has already received five honours for intelligence work. A request for references resulted in some being provided: nicely formatted but totally empty! At best unverifiable, probably an hoax and in any case, is he actually notable? -- RHaworth 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless references can be fixed. -Amatulic 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not credible, especially given claimed Fox News coverage. Probably the work of another student fantasist Bwithh 00:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean- here's the timeline for him joining the Army: He travelled to NYC right after 9/11 from CA and then worked at 9/11 site for 2 weeks. Now let's say he immediately enlists in the US Army without seeing friends and family for possibly the last time and goes and jumps on the bus to go through basic training. There must be less than 13 weeks left in the year. Basic training takes 9 weeks plus 4 weeks for infantry training. So we're asked to assume that he's so great that they immediately promote him at the time of enlistment (before any training!) to Specialist rank (a rank which usually requires at least 2 years services and specific technical skills/training[34]) and ship him off to Afghanistan before the usual basic training period is over! Bwithh 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Complete bollocks. I will go and put the hoax template on the article. Here are the reasons:
1. Timeline is unrealistic and self-contradictory. Claimed to have become a NOC during 2001 at top of article, but below is "recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency ... in early 2002." More problems as noted by Bwithh.
2. Asserted capture by Taliban is highly unlikely. In 2003 the Taliban were at their lowest point and would have had trouble capturing anyone. Also, terrorist organizations kill their captives.
3. The Exceptional Service Medallion is awarded "for injury or death resulting from service in an area of hazard" ([35]) but there is no mention of any injury.
4. I know people who have this kind of fantasy -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is another one.

--N Shar 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some more reasons:
5. Lack of verifiable sources
6. Intimate knowledge of subject and parents suggests that author and subject are same person.
7. No Google hits indicating that Catherine R. Kinney ever had a son named "Brianséan Kinney".
--N Shar 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 01:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowsmith Academy[edit]

non-notable now closed school (article even says that "by far" the most notable thing about it was that its name sounds like the band). Only reference is to the school's now-blanked website which announces its closing, and says that it struggled for years with enrollment...not something a really notable school would have a problem with. Deprodded by a user who deprods every school article, regardless of quality. Akradecki 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. EVula 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Former school. 4 sentences, 2 or which are irrelevant. No reliable sources. Catchpole 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Deizio talk 09:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Rudiak[edit]

According to the article, "best known as investigator of the Roswell UFO incident and other UFO cases." I find some internet chatter on him but all of three Newsbank news articles:

  • Daily Times, The (Farmington, NM) - April 3, 2005 (passing mention as a speaker)
  • Albuquerque Journal (NM) - November 23, 2002 (passing mention halway through the article: "A UFO researcher, David Rudiak, claims a computer enhancement of the photo allowed him to read about "victims" and a crashed disk in the old memo.")
  • THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, August 16, 1990 (not sure if that's him, but clearly not on UFO research; passing mention)

I can post the articles if anyone is interested in fleshing this out and sourcing, but if not it should be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not even sure why this article exists — maybe to avoid a red link in some other articles? -Amatulic 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. EyeMD 05:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Roswell is being investigated by thousands. Unless he's written a widely read book on it, don't consider this notable. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWikipedia requires a seperation of fact from fiction. The Crying Orc 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I agree with User:Jfdwolff. There needs to be expanded WP:N for this particular investigator to stay, such as a published book. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


I have deleted the page; there appear to be insufficient independent, reliable works on the subject on which one may base an encyclopedia entry. —Encephalon 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Arganbright[edit]

Questionably notable webstrip author; the article is mainly about the comic. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been edited to focus more on the author. More information on Mr. Arganbright is forthcoming —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JMSWDLY (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:BIO. TheRingess 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Amatulic 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. I like the webcomic, and it gets thousands of hits per day. --JMSWDLY 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that "thousands of hits per day" guarantess that the article meets WP:BIO. Also a number like that has to have a reliable source.TheRingess 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A personal liking and number of hits aren't sufficient criteria to keep. =Axlq 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely nn. I've removed the mislinks on the character names. Deizio talk 09:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to locality. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highfields Primary School[edit]

Contested prod, article asserts no notabilty, school is now closed because they couldn't find enough kids (that alone seems to hint at non-notability!) Akradecki 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems to me that those others, except for perhaps Christchurch Primary School, should be prodded. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the suggestion of the WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 04:58, 22 October 2006
  • Merge or more accurately maintain merge to satisfy GFDL requirements, as this content has already been merged days ago. Silensor 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AfDs for this article:
List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of misconceptions[edit]

This was listed way back when on VfD; apparently it was kept but with a rather strong argument to delete. But anyway. I feel this should be deleted because it's an incredibly broad subject, prone to picking up oodles and oodles of unsourced or spurious information while running the risk of growing massively unwieldy. Nothing on this list cannot be sufficiently covered in the items' respective articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So in conclusion, I don't find this list necessary. Crystallina 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The idea is OK-ish, but it's far too subjective to ever be a good article. You either allow everyone to add their pet "popular misconception", in which case it becomes an unverfiable mess (it's leaning that way already), or you only allow things that are uncontroversially known to be popularly thought and known to be wrong, which almost by definiton is impossible. --Dtcdthingy 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Abstain Abstain. --Metropolitan90 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cantor argument: clearly this article would have to both contain and not contain itself. Michael K. Edwards 07:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything in this article should be in the main articles about whatever subjects are involved, assuming they are true, that is. Also these two articles may be worth considering: List of famous misquotations (which I would TW to Wikiquote, and will see about doing shortly) and List of misleading food names. FrozenPurpleCube 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case, can the closing admin be sure to cut-and-paste each entry and put it on the relevant article before deleting this list? PT (s-s-s-s) 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and useful compilation of things people know which in fact are not so. The check against "everyone adding their pet misconception and them being unverifiable is that if so you can delete them. Prove it! is a fair request.Edison 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what Wikipedia's all about - even if only 100 people find it interesting procrastination, it should stay. Let those who like it edit it. Danlibbo 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this is a perfect example of an indescriminate collection of information. Something wikipedia is not. Eluchil404 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List may be better. The right reaction is to improve it, not to delete it. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such lists have been created by physics education groups and are used in science teaching classrooms. If the list is too general, perhaps it should be split into more specific articles such as "science misconceptions" etc. Also, I haven't seen most of this information elsewhere on WP, since WP articles are nearly always oriented towards communicating information rather than predicting the existing misinformation and then trying to remove it from users' heads. And about unlimited growth and unweildyness: the article grew quickly at one point, then it stopped. If it expands at the current rate, it will be a very long time before size becomes a problem. --Wjbeaty 08:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It can be quite interesting and educational. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Pinto[edit]

bio page for NN-writer delete DesertSky85451 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is her non-notable work:
  • Delete or Merge both. She may be gaining notoriety and therefore it may be worth keeping some information about her, but I lean toward delete for now. -Amatulic 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete both. Non-notable. No mention in the Times or the Guardian. Bejnar 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - and kudos to Mr Wetzel for being so classy about it. DS 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Wetzel[edit]

Nonnotable author with one book, An Actor's Nightmare, also nominated here. The book is published by Amazon's vanity press BookSurge and has a current Amazon sales rank of 1,360,352. NawlinWiki 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the problem if you come across a really good book and want to help the author get the word out? I don't think that should be penalized. A know many other people that have read the book, met a few dozen of them at a book signing, and we are all very eager to read the second one. We are also eager to spread the word about a book we really liked. Wikipedia is a great resource to do that. Why is this being fought so hard? --Stewart08 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps you might look at WP:NOT. Basically, Wikipedia is not for promotion. A person already has to meet WP:BIO for inclusion.TheRingess 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the one who originally nominated this for speedy. I think this person does not meet WP:BIO.TheRingess 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And someone should probably look into a possible sock puppet situation here and on the article's talk page. -- Tim D 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I read the guidelines and see nothing that excludes Jerome Wetzel from having an entry. In fact, search Columbus and Madison County newspapers, and you will find reviews of his work, which I believe qualifies him for an entry, per the 'guidelines' referring to multiple reviews of an author's work. --JMSWDLY 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue to fight this, I will give up. This is my last ditch effort to change your minds. --JMSWDLY 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to provide links to those reviews, then we could read them ourselves. I'm not convinced that reviews in local newspapers meet the guidelines. BTW, this really isn't a fight merely a discussion. TheRingess 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews were in The Madison Press and the Madison messenger, neither of which are online. I cannot find the article from The Columbus Dispatch. Perhaps it is too old, or maybe I just didn't know how to search for it. Other newspapers may have carried it. I don't know. The guidelines, as I read them, are not binding or conclusive, just guidelines. It is my opinion that a book series that has readers and has been reviewed would qualify, but like I said, I won't keep discussing this if its clear that the editors don't agree. I will let Mr. Wetzel or some other fan take up the battle. I did this for fun, not to make a whole night out of debating just to get it posted.--JMSWDLY 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. This is Jerome Wetzel, the author in question. I was informed a short time ago by one of my fans, who goes by the name Stewart08 on wikipedia, that there was a debate going on. I did just create an account to speak, because I didn't have one. I would like to personally apologize for any disruption this has caused to your web site. Although I did not have an account until today, I use Wikipedia often. While I am flattered that fans of mine want to take up my cause, I have to admit that there aren't that many of them anyway, and the multiple names was probably an attempt by them to help me out. I have been promoting my book for the past year, and have had a hard time of it, though comments from readers have been extremely positive. I am sure that these people only wished to help me in this task. I agree that I am not noteworthy enough to have my own Wikipedia entry, although it would be an honor if someday that did happen. Anyone who is discussing an entry for me on my behalf, please desist and let these fine people go about their jobs. If you are trying to get the post deleted, I apologize again. I hope that this comment stops the fan postings and that you may go about your nights. Thanks you. --JeromeWetzel 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delinquency among boys without mothers[edit]

The debate suggested merge yet no consueus (or however it's spelt) happened instead, so re-nominating. --FlareNUKE 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del This is a journal article, not an encyclopedia article. Several summaries of several journal articles. Smells original research or essay, or whatever. The whole article may be boiled down to "Studies show that there is not a strong relationship between a child’s delinquency and length of separation from the child’s mother. There is no conclusive research on whether motherless children are more or less delinquent than fatherless children." an placed into "juvenile delinquency" Mukadderat 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not even a journal entry it's a essay--M8v2 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teutophone[edit]

del dicdef for a nonnotable neologism. Barely a blip in google. Mukadderat 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikitionary Teutophone is an acceptable word, just like francophone and anglophone for french and english; however, this does belong in Wikitionary.
  • Keep. I'm a bit confused here. Seems like this should be renamed to Germanophone and then expanded to something comparable to Anglophone or Francophone or even Tagalophone. We have a lot of articles of this type. Why discriminate against German? --JJay 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will get rid of Tagalophone: merge/redirect it to Tagalog. While "teutophone" case is a mistake of mukadderat to check against "germanophone", the idea is that only those "-phone" articles make sense in which something can be said beyond dicdef. I had hard time to defend them, see, eg., Talk:-phone and in some other places. If you look into these articles, they describe certain nontrivial cultural connotations beyond dicdef "speaker of <this> language". "teutophone" fails notability. `'mikkanarxi 04:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if I am following your logic here. There are hundreds of hits on google scholar for Germanophone [36], not to mention news and other sources. Why can't the article be expanded to include the cultural connotations you are talking about? --JJay 13:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are not discussing Germanophone article here. If someone can write something referenced and beyond dicdef into the "Germanophone" (which is a very meaningful redirect now), they are very welcome. `'mikkanarxi 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are discussing germanophone since the meaning is apparently identical per my initial vote. Also, if you find the redirect "meaningful", why not argue for a redirect of teutophone? --JJay 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. `'mikkanarxi 04:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. Pavel Vozenilek 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete as dicdef, and note that there is nothing stopping anyone from creating Germanophone - it is not within the scope of this AfD to support or deny that decision. Themindset 22:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_18&oldid=1116878342"