Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 28

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

Purge server cache

















































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

The result was: Speedy keep. This is a question of proper spelling of the name, which is addressed with renames and redirects, not AfD. FreplySpang 23:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigapets[edit]

The correct name of the toy in question is the two-word "Giga Pet," which has since been created. Tamajared 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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
























































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

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soroptimist International Center City Philadelphia[edit]

Advertisement. Delete or redirect to Soroptimist. Húsönd 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, putting anything salvagable in Soroptimist. I was hoping this could be saved, but it's indeed just an ad, there's not even the seed of an encyclopedic article there.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Calieber. Redirect to Soroptimist and possibly put some information into the article. Hello32020 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it remains as is. Lacks notability, importance, etc. Arbusto 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure if there's anything salvageable for the main article. Unless there's something distinctive about the Philly chapter, it shouldn't really have its own article, let alone a stub. --Dennisthe2 05:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On condition of an tidy up.Nathannoblet 08:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. There's nothing in the article to distinguish it from Soroptimist.~ Brother William 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads as an ad, quite WP:SPAM-like. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of Redirect to SPAMY.-- danntm T C 14:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or per danntm -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy White Cleaveland[edit]

Local actress working suburban Michigan. No notable roles -- stage, screen, or television -- noted, though she claims to have done the music and lyrics for an Afternoon Special. Calton | Talk 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm assuming it's shorthand for those mildly cheesy TV dramas put out by ABC in the afternoon -- ABC Afterschool Specials, I think, was the official title -- aimed at imparting painless moral lessons for American teens. Oh no, Sarah's an alcoholic! Oh no, Bobby's being tempted to cheat on a test! Stuff like that. Non-notable individually, yes, though real. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A red link means the article doesn't exist. It has no relation to its notability. Notability should be determined from outside sources, not based on the existence of its Wikipedia article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability should NOT be affected by the fact that the nominator couldn't be bothered to check what he wikilinks to, and the name of the article is After school special --Roninbk t c # 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article you just linked to does not mention her means that the nominator mistyping the article title is irrelevent to this AFD. This does not affect the notability argument whatsoever. --67.68.153.192 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator DID check several spelling variations (and why aren't they redirects?) but since the existence or non-existence of an article of this type of TV show -- as the nominator clearly states in his clarification -- has bugger-all to do with the notability or non-notability of this subject, thought it was an utter waste of time to locate the EXACT spelling (assuming it existed), instead choosing to clarify what the damned things were. --Calton | Talk 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I pointed it out was because someone said "Oooh, red-link. That must mean non-notable," and I was pointing out the fallacy of the argument. I was not saying that she was responsible for the After school special, and this article up for deletion doesn't assert that either. What it asserts is that she worked on a production called "Billy" which is an "Afterschool Special" --Roninbk t c # 09:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baggy jeans[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, original research, nothing to say about this topic that makes sense to cover in an encyclopedia. Merge anything useful into Jeans. GTBacchus(talk) 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge relevent info into jeans per nom. TJ Spyke 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. widespread, encyclopedic and verifiable from retail catalogs and coverage of various attempts to ban it. Gazpacho 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a list at Talk:Baggy jeans of several statements from the article that seem to me to be original research, amounting to most of the content of the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I added URLs showing that the statements are not all original research. Should the article on jeans digress into a discussion of the legal issues? You're in Seattle, so you need only go to a skate park or mall and see these things yourself. Gazpacho 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unencyclopedic original research. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Mysmartmouth 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into jeans, probably into "fits" section (which should be expanded). Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add a link to Skateboarding (and perhaps a very brief explaination) in the fits section of Jeans. -- IslaySolomon 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The referenced article doesn't say that this cut of jeans (jean?) specifically refers to this style of jeans. "Baggy" commonly also just means "loose fitting". As such, it's unverified. eaolson 05:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge encyclopedic content (of which there doesn't seem to be much). --Keitei (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to jeans EyeMD 05:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jeans per Gazpacho's sources. Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To jeans, and possibly merge anything that doesn't violate WP:OR Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with jeans, per above. --mathewguiver 21:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSpirituallaws 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 2nd edit to wikipedia. Suspected sockpuppet. Stubbleboy 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm frankly shocked at the amount of merge recommendations here. The phenomenon is such that plenty can be written about it, and this should obviously be kept and expanded by people familar with fashion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's certainly nothing to stop anyone adding that information to jeans, and when there's an article's worth of verifiable information there, it can split off quite naturaly. Meanwhile, a redirect is much more useful than the two or so verifiable sentences we've got now. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shocked as you may be, if you could provide some sources as to baggy jeans's encyclopedic value, I would appreciate it. Please remember our tenet of WP:NOR, as well as all other policies of inclusion... (WP:V, WP:CITE, etc.) --Storkk 23:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger, reformater et redirecter zu jeans artikle thx Using a word such as "guy" as a general pronoun means this article is fucked up. --nlitement [talk] 12:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep details on a social aspect and common fashion. If not keep then merge with jeans. Definitely shoud not be deleted, but more content on the history and background would befit it. Think outside the box 16:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--84.47.110.241 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Anon IP's first edit was a consensus at this afd. Please see 84.47.110.241 (talk · contribs) for evidence. Stubbleboy 12:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While "baggy" does have the general meaning of loose in the English language Baggy Jeans are a specific cut of jeans manufactured by all the major jeans manufacturers. It is one of the main contemparary cuts. There are other cuts that are also notable and all deserve their own articles covering: history, development, social uses, notable examples, pictures, etc. These include : Bell-bottoms, phat pants, overalls. To merge this article with jeans would be like merging four wheel drive and convertible with car. This article was only recently created so will continue to have more information added by more editors. If merged it will only be a matter of time before it is split again from jeans into its own article (more talk, more work). Sure one of the usually anonymous editors is a vandal (here here and edits to other pages phat pants other articles some warnings and they edit the same articles at closely related times with the same changes made as this occasionally logged in editor ) but others also contribute.

I am shocked that something that everybody seems to know about is not deemed to be common knowledge. I am also shocked that the very same information is already included in wikipedia in a number of articles without any controversy there: Skateboarding, Hip hop fashion and others.
Most of all I find it extremely disappointing that something that is so important, to the point of forming part of the core identity of many individuals involved in the alternative subcultures of skating and hip hop could be so disregarded. These individuals easily number in the hundreds of thousands in countries all over the globe. The fact that their important details would be erased from a "global body of knowledge" while some guy can list the 20 bus routes that pass through his white middle class U S of A suburb without any objection is shocking. Especially when these articles are one line each. Or worse train stations that don't even exist yet. It makes me seriously question what values are at work in the minds of certain individuals involved with wikipedia. Tiggertrouble 09:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with jeans. I don't see an article on boot cut jeans, straight leg jeans, or hip hugger jeans. Even the "flares" article pointed to by Tiggertrouble (which is a disambiguation page) leads to bell-bottoms - not bellbottom jeans. If the article was just about the fashion of baggy pants in general, that might be okay. But specifically baggy jeans? Nope. Kafziel Talk 12:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What fashion of baggy pants in general would that be? Gazpacho 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure I understand the question. Kafziel Talk 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with jeans or delete as unencyclopedic --Storkk 23:01, 3 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Martins[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-gate transistor[edit]

Fairly non-notable research that has seen little to no use so far. Not fundamentally different from a typical FET. This at best merits a sentence in the FET article. mattb @ 2006-09-28T00:57Z

  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. I notice that the article's creator marked the creation as minor and has no other edits.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Field effect transistor. Gazpacho 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge and redirect, the tri-gate transistor is a very real technology, and is said to be featured in upcoming 45nm based processors. The article was actually moved from some other place, hence the minor. It originally contained the article that was in [1]. I was planning on doing a rewrite/expansion, but it seems someone marked it for deletion before I could do so. Danorux 01:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Intel has successfully demonstrated hybrid InP-CMOS lasers, but we don't have an article on it. There's a notability line to be drawn, and this one falls way into the realm of "interesting research". If it ends up seeing major usage, maybe it will merit an article in a year or so. The fact is, 3D FET designs have been around for awhile, and this particular design was suggested around 5 years ago and demonstrated at least 3 years ago. However, it's still very much a developing device design and therefore, I think, fails to merit an encyclopedia article. I mean, I could pick one of a several interesting semiconductor research topics that I personally work on and write an article, but since they are all highly experimental and in their early stages of development, there isn't much to say that is appropriate for an encyclopedia rather than a formal research results publication. Again, we are still talking about a plain 'ol MOSFET, nothing else. The (MOS)FET article perhaps should have a line or two about modern experimental structures, but the device still operates on the same principles that all other FETs do, and therefore probably doesn't deserve its own article. -- mattb @ 2006-09-28T01:37Z
      • Comment, in that case, I change my bid to merge + redirect. I should've marked the original article as a copyright violation instead... Danorux 02:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge+Redirect or Delete per above. Hello32020 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above --Mysmartmouth 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most this is a merge and of course redirect. Dunno why it was listed for deletion. it's perfectly verifiable. --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect To Field effect transistor per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information in Wikipedia. Either Keep or Merge to an appropriate article. Fg2 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: shouldn't be deleted before sentence is included in FET article. This article can exist when the technology makes it encyclopedic, rather than {{prophecy}} --Storkk 23:16, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous left-handed people[edit]

one of those endlist, Unmaintaniable listcruft, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but this might be useful to someone.--Húsönd 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is unmaintaible, too many lefty though, better serves as a category, which I think it's in CFD for the same reason. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As a lefty myself, I think this list is a great idea, and it even helped me out on a project. It's useful, so keep, per above. --Mysmartmouth 02:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only use I can see in this list is for left-handed poeple to brag momentarily about all the famous people that are left-handed, before being shot down in flames by right-handed people showing off how many more famous people are right-handed. This page is one of the most easily vandalised pages in all of wikipedia (who's going to go through and check if they're all actually left-handed?). The individual articles should say if they're left-handed or not. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes 90% of the world can join the right handed list.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why don't people spend time cleaning up articles instead of creating pointless lists? Arbusto 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen!! Bwithh 02:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A ridiculously broad criterion for a list. If it were ever completed, this article would include links to about 1 in 10 biographical articles on wikipedia. -- IslaySolomon 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Left-handedness is important, but you cannot draw much of a connection among the people on this list other than, say, the wrote or did whatever with their left hands. If being left-handed is a notable aspect of the person (say, someone like Sandy Koufax), then that can and should be covered in the person's article. GassyGuy 05:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is quite a lot of deeper conections between left handed people. Strong connection with dominent right hemisphere, see Lateralization of brain function. --Salix alba (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but it's probably better handled by a webpage someplace. --Dennisthe2 05:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep. A category with the same purpose is currently up for deletion at CFD and one of the options mooted there is to merge it into this list. As such, it is clear that some of those there that the list should exist, and also deletion of the list will add confusion to that discussion. It may be better to at least hold this nomination in abeyance until some final decision there. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, at least those which can be verified. By the looks of the list, it looks like everyone and his dog is left-handed. Is there more need for a list of famous right-handed people then? JIP | Talk 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the split is indeed 10%/90% then a list of right-handed people would be about 9 times as unmaintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Unmaintainable. Contains too many people. With regard to most people this info is trivial and irrelevant and shouldn't be in their article let alone a separate list. When it comes to musicians and athletes something can be said for including it in the relevant articles and making a category out of it. Left-handedness is totally irrelevant to the carreer of for example a politician. Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone's wondering. I'm left-handed too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a lefty, and I think that this is just as important as a list of gay people or black people. We're a minority that is discriminated against constantly, and I want our voice to be heard. Don't silence us! Billy Blythe 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason to vote keep, those if created will meet AFD, same with a list of right-handed people, and other types of those lists. Jaranda wat's sup 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as replace with a category. Batmanand | Talk 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with category creation.~ Brother William 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not create a category - that would be even worse than the list. A list is more maintainable, a category would end up in giant cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Left-handedness is a fascinating subject of academic study where it is linked with other character traits; having such a list is therefore helpful. I agree with almost everyone that a category wouldn't work here. There is no need for a corresponding list of right-handed people. David | Talk 12:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (left-handed too, in the interests of full disclosure)[reply]
How does this article help to elucidate on the character traits linked to left-handedness? GassyGuy 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because famous people have usually become famous for something exceptional they have done (there are always exceptions, of course), so readers may wish to spot themes and trends in the list of people provided. David | Talk 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People wishing to "spot themes" should either read about the studies done or conduct their own. Using this list is an arbitray and inaccurate method, and it would be a disservice to whatever people to represent it otherwise. Plus, as you already say, there is hardly a trend that will encompass even the majority of these people, because the only real theme here is that they share an arbitrary criterion. GassyGuy 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintanable listcruft, about as useful as List of people with blue eyes. Kusma (討論) 13:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the sort of list that is always a problem. who is 'famous' and what is the significance of grouping those selected 'famous' people by this criteria instead of a million others? -Markeer 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not very maintainable (keep the category instead of the list, if one is to be kept). As noted, very few of these are noted for their lefthandedness, and where it's true it should be noted in the individual bio articles instead. Also, Billy Blythe's comment puts me into opposition based on WP:NOT a soapbox or forum for advocacy. I don't see that this list can provide any analysis or insight as suggested by David. Barno 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but needs to be sectioned, the athletes should have a seperate section, there are a million lefty ballplayers but few in the other professions. An interesting topic. Modernist 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per several arguments above. Why is it unmaintainable? All we need is a rule that every entry needs a source that passes WP:RS. Further to Modernist's comment, I could easily add many left-handed cricketers, all verified by standard cricketing sources.--Runcorn 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barno. Postdlf 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG split. The idea of having all those professions jammed into one ginormous list is truly askng for trouble. What we should do is fork off the sections, apart from the very short ones like Royalty and Philosophers. Since I have strong feelings on the issue of alternate proposals in AfDs, I volunteer to perform the split. Mangojuicetalk 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they were to become compact, then I would say categorize, but I am still left wondering... say we have a list of or category for left-handed royalty. How does this help us understand the members of said list or category? GassyGuy 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. An article on famous left-handed people isn't really to help understand those people but rather to add information about left-handedness. Mangojuicetalk 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but section per Modernist. --mathewguiver 21:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete superlistcruft Bwithh 02:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kusma. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but require citations to each person; I hardly doubt that falsely accusing someone of left-handedness is libellous in this day and age but we should strive to keep biographical articles thoroughly referenced. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are easy to get, but I counted over 300 people in that list, and it's not even a tenth of all the articles that could be listed I'm pretty sure. So it's an endless list. Jaranda wat's sup 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't say earlier, but I think a "Famous left-handed people" category would be a horrible category, it would be clutter in every article that belonged to it, and also, it would be even worse to have subcategories, so we would completely lose the organization the current list has. Mangojuicetalk 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a couple of reasons: no assertion of notability because of their left-handedness (if this were the case it would be fine), plus violates WP:NPOV as it passes a judgement call as to who is "famous" enough to be on the list. 23skidoo 06:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We don't need "notability because of their left-handedness"; we just need a good source that they are or were left-handed. If they have a Wikipedia article, then either they are notable enough or the article should be deleted.--Poetlister 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and important list. Davey4 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly sensible list - see my comments above.--Poetlister 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep citations can be added over time. The CfD seems to be heading to listify so it would be odd to delete the list right after that descision. Could pontenially be split if it get too long. --Salix alba (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry to put this ugly box here, but I really want to get people's attention to clarify a point. Some people have realized this but from the discussion it is clear that not all have. A number of people are suggesting that this article be changed into a category. I think that you should know that the reason that this list article is here at AfD in the first place is likely because I placed Category:Famous lefthanded people on CfD about 9½ hours to prior (or it could be just a coincidence). At any rate, it may be prudent to let the CfD run its course and then possibly re-list this AfD at that time (or at least be aware that the category may no longer be there by the time that the AfD is closed). --After Midnight 0001 21:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see also my comments above. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found out about the CFD a few hours after AFDing the article, I found the article via Lists of people. Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is informative, provided that people who add to it aren't just making stuff up. Maybe semi-protect it?--Narlee 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were "List of famous (some other minority)", there would be no chance of deletion. There's no need to semi-protect it, just insist on WP:V.--Holdenhurst 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a major psychological irony here that should be noted. Left brained dominated people (a majority of right handed people) tend to think far more often in terms of ego/power/hierarchy and competition. Whereas left handers are mainly co-operative non-power seekers (Einstein, Gandhi, Bob Geldof etc.) Thus the right handed become aggravated and incensed in any possibility where their ego/power/hierarchy is threatened. This list is a good example. What this list does is proffer examples why the human species should think more in terms of the right brain/left hand. It is the higher genius element that we can all tap into. Repressing or deleting this information just continues the retrogressive and/or destructive trend of the "left brained dominated".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthacademy (talk • contribs)
Comment boy I sure hope that last entry was meant as a joke. Actually, I think one of the problems with the list is its inherent lack of objectivity. It's a pretty safe bet to assume the list is maintained by left-handed people who undoubtedly are in fact seeking something that ressembles a "list of left-handers that left-handers can be proud of", like Einstein, Gandhi and Bob Geldof. On the other hand, the list is fairly harmless and you do get to learn interesting things like how Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper are really co-operative non-power seekers (or so Earthacademy would want us to believe). Pascal.Tesson 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin will likely ignore the vote, and yes I'm left-handed as well. Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting but some of the information is incorrect e.g Hitler wasn't left handed [[2]] the Devil may have been though ?
  • Strong Delete - WP is NOT a list of random things. This is amazingly broad, at least 1/3 of the worlds population is left handed and guess what, there are a LOT of famous people. Let's cut this kind of garbage and hit ALT-D -- Tawker 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs to be a little more disciplined, but I think it's a useful resource. Jack Parlabane 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has less than 20 edits. Jaranda wat's sup 22:42, 2 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward Stanley[edit]

Alledged victim of spontaneous human combustion. Pure hoax - search engines give nothing for an event claimed to have happened in 2003. -- RHaworth 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails Google test, unverifiable, article creator has made no unrelated contributions, and the whole thing is completely made up. -- Kicking222 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spontaneously incinerate as hoax. NawlinWiki 02:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. per above. --Mysmartmouth 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks WP:V and is NN. Arbusto 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A hearty Delete for all the above reasons (lends a match to ignite this pile of nonsense). Johnbrownsbody 03:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a page created primarily to disparage its subject (CSD A6). -- IslaySolomon 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. The idea is a hoax. EyeMD 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per IslaySolomon. Not just a hoax, but a defamatory hoax. MysteryDog 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above.UberCryxic 22:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't meet WP:V plange 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, burn it with fire. RFerreira 22:46, 2 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 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of Tar Valon[edit]

A scant few 200-member internet forums can meet the notability guidelines of WP:WEB. This is not, however, an example of one that does. -- Scientizzle 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Mysmartmouth 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fills the definition of web forum vanity. And look! It even lists individual forum members! JIP | Talk 08:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, NN and having very little hope of passing WP:WEB. What I don't understand, for the life of me, is the article mentioning that being a 'small' group helps to build bonds within the group, then it gets stuck on the Wikipedia as an advert. No disrespect to the contributors who've built it, but that isn't what WP is about. QuagmireDog 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I've struck through this vote and voted again below. QuagmireDog 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ~ Brother William 11:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I have read through the critical issues to do with this and I am curious, if "A scant few 200-member internet forums can meet the notability guidelines of WP:WEB" then why doesn't this one? For the record, yes I belong to the site, no I did not write the article, no I did not reccomend the article be written nor sanction anyone from my site to write it. However, the phenomena that is the online Community which has sprung up around such notables as the Wheel of Time and Harry Potter for instance, should be acknolwedged as in existence, I thought that was what wiki was all about? I understand we can't use you to advertise our site, and that that would be wrong. But where does the line between an advertisement end and fulfilling wiki's purpose of broad knowledge begin?SerenityMaconar 11:50, 30 September 2006
It doesn't meet WP:WEB because there are no examples of outside press about the site listed. WP:V is also a useful reference here. The Wikipedia is a tertiary source, taking information from secondary sources. Anything listed as an article on WP should have been written about by a non-trivial organization or the press. What's being asked is "who has written about this site?", since it is limited to 200 users, that's a fair question. Some small forums may have received press, for instance a particular magazine or paper found them interesting, or perhaps one of the forum users was of note which sparked some interest. If you (or indeed anyone else) has examples of the website receiving this kind of coverage, please supply them (as the lack of this is what has brought the article here to AFD). The Wikipedia is all about as much information being provided as possible in a balanced, neutral point-of-view and by showing the subject's 'notability'. Without asking for evidence of the subject receiving some relevant press, the WP would be massively bloated in a very short time. I haven't had a chance to have a proper look for some press for this site, yet, or a wheel-of-time wiki where this info could go, but I thought it better to at least try and answer your query. QuagmireDog 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Wheel of Time Wiki right here [3], who may be able to host this information, for a start. Google searching "Realm of Tar Valon" comes up with only 22 unique hits, none of which seem to be a secondary source that could be used to apply notability. The site has no Alexa rank, three sites link into the RoTV site - two are message board posts and one is a directory of WoT links. Basically, if WP was to host every website of this kind it would end up looking like a mirror for the whole interweb. The site and the WP article on it both look nicely written and I'm sure will be of interest to WoT fans, but we're looking for articles which could interest readers with no prior knowledge of the subject - an article about a small message board doesn't say much apart from that this site exists. I'm changing my vote because of the Wiki. I hope my explanation for my own thinking is of some help Serenity. QuagmireDog 22:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to [4] then deletify. Site displays no signs of passing WP:WEB, but the article could well be useful at this Wiki. QuagmireDog 22:13, 1 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 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irene's Puddle and K. S. Willcox[edit]

Advert / vanity articles about a non-notable book not yet / only just published and its author. -- RHaworth 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete "Irene's Puddle"? Four Google hits, all from the book's web site. "K. S. Willcox"? Three hits. "Kim Smith-Willcox"? Zero. -- Kicking222 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This IS a published book, albeit a relatively unknown one. However, I would leave it up, but that's more of a personal opinion then an interpretation of policy. --Mysmartmouth 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amazon has never heard of this author, and they sell self-published material. Arbusto 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks totally nn at this point in time Marcus22 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I posted both of these articles regarding a book that has just been sent to press. I can wait to post them again once distribution has occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefficator (talk • contribs) [author of the articles]
You should wait longer than that: you should wait until the book and its author have actually become notable. And the best way to establish their notability is to wait until someone else writes about them. -- RHaworth 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all, on the balance of arguments, not the !vote tally. The main argument for keeping appears to be that adding this unencyclopaedic information to the main entries bloats them (a view to which there appears to be no significant dissent), therefore the unencyclopaedic information should be in a separate article. I find that extraordinarily unpersuasive. Lists of the films in which a particular weapon can be glimpsed are almost without exception original research, and there is no suggestion that these are the subject of the films. We don't have an article for, say, the Ford Crown Victoria in popular culture because every US cop show based in the last decade or so will of course have Crown Vics in it; similarly, every war film orr shoot-em-up based in the 39-45 period will of course have the Garand and various other weapons in it. The content is functionally equivalent to a list of popular culture references to combat based in the period foo, where foo is the period over which the weapon was used. A subsidiary argument for keeping is "I like it". WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:V and WP:RS. We have no authorities for the vast majority of content here, and no authorities for the significance of the individual weapons within the pop culture item (film or whatever) nor of the significance of the film to the subject. The example of the F-14 and Top Gun cited in the debate is an excellent one; where a weapon is integral to the plot of a film that justifies a one-liner in the main article. Where it's a prop, it most surely does not. Finally, as per the nomination, if we have a reliable source for the ubiquity of the weapon in films of a period, then that, too, can go in the main article. We do not need a list of World War II films in every article on any weapon used in World War II. To pick an example not in this collection, the M3 Half-track was used as the generic half-track, on all sides, in almost every film, with very few notable exceptions. That doesn't take long to say and we sure as hell don't need a list. Guy 09:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M1911 in popular culture[edit]

I am nominating the following "Firearm X in Popular Culture" pages, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically, it is not a directory of prop appearances. Moreover, these articles incur severe WP:V problems. Visual confirmation is often insufficient; there is often debate over which model of M16 is represented; short of commentary from the prop staff, these lists violate WP:V and WP:OR.

This follows the AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_firearms_in_video_games, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M16 rifle in popular culture.

While I cannot rule out the existence of an item of pop culture that prominently featured a firearm in the way that Top Gun featured the F-14, none of these rise to the occasion. Even if it were, it would deserve a 1-liner in the main article. A wholesale list of prop appearances is irrelevant and often speculative. What's next? Honda Accord in popular culture? Ikea furniture in popular culture? I am willing to accede that a reliable source may make a statement about the ubiquity of some firearm in a film; such a statement should go in the original article.

These are not articles. That much is clear. A comprehensive list is unmaintainable, difficult to verify, and ultimately original research unless the prop director can be quoted on the matter. Visual confirmation does not satisfy WP:V, as evidenced by the debates over what a weapon was. (is that a MAC-10 or a lookalike? Which Beretta did he carry? Who cares?)

Can they be converted to lists or categories? Given the severe verifiability problems and notability issues, I say not. Do we need a category for each prop?

Up for co-nomination are:

I am nominating these together because the criteria for deletion applies equally to each. Mmx1 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added 17:00, 28 September 2005

Another editor brought these to my attention. The same arguments pro/con apply equally unless there are individual objections below.

  • Recommend Delete and protect against recreation as they appear to be popular steamvalves. --Mmx1 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list, although I'm sure for what. --Mysmartmouth 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's silly, and no one needs them. It just comes down to a bunch of wanabee middle schoolers thinking there bad because they knew that said firearm in said movie was a Mac-10 or watever.Jigsaw Jimmy 16:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created some of these articles, and my reason for doing so was to keep this kind of trivia out of the main firearm/weapon article. If any pop culture section is left in a firearm/weapon article it tends to grow out of control as every video-gamer wants to put their favourite game in, same thing with movies. If we just delete these references as and when they are put it in leads to revert wars and the whole thing just becomes a never ending maintenance issue on the articles. Some say "only leave in the references which are somehow iconic or significant", but of course that's entirely subjective as to which are iconic or significant. The solution which seemed to work best was to create the separate articles for pop culture refs, so that they could just grow and all the gamers and film buffs would be happy but the main article would be left alone. Not ideal - I agree that this stuff shouldn't be in at all, but it WILL keep being put back in the main articles unless you give them somewhere else to put it. So I say Keep unless someone has a better solution to the problem of pop culture cruft. Riddley 03:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my recommendation for a protection against recreation template on these pages. Point them to that and this AfD discussion. A better solution that has worked well on the aircraft pages was to establish a wikiproject consensus [5], which established itself in the wikiproject guideline on contentWikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. These guidelines have stifled many potential edit wars. How about we take it up before the general Wikiproject Military History?--Mmx1 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that a consensus policy in the project which we could point to would be essential if we are to "police" the main articles to keep the trivia out. Riddley 03:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brought it before the Military History wikiproject: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_Culture. Fire away. --Mmx1 04:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have the policy, Delete all - scorched earth and see how it goes. Riddley 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Arbusto 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Riddley's recommendation.Orca1 9904 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Orca1_9904[reply]
  • Delete Trivial nonsense. I realize weapons fetishists love to seek out where their particular favorite gun was used in a film or anime, but it's just not important. Keep out all the pop culture references, unless it is something truly iconic like James Bond using the Walther PPK. --Junky 03:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all per nom. Listcruft. Nuke the sites from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. --Dennisthe2 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non trivial pop culture references should be OK in articles, just use common sense.--Peta 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alll per nom. TJ Spyke 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Neutral). I agree that this is not encyclopedic, not notable, etc., and shouldn't be in a separate article. But I have seen similar things in other articles. The "Messiah" article once had a section on "Jewish Messiah Claimants" that eventually wound up taking up about 3/4 of the article with a list of nobodies. The result was that people stopped contribting useful information until the list was split into a separate article. Deleting the articles and protecting against recreation will simply restart the problem in the main articles. RickReinckens 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all lists of random objects appearing in random series. It's not encyclopedic or necessary, and hopefully this AFD also discourages similar lists in the articles for the objects themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect any articles that have high-profile mentions of the weapon in the film/show/book that can be verified from published sources (not watching film in question). Delete the others. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legit spinoff from the main article. Pop culture articles spun off from regular articles are well established on Wikipedia. They almost always survive deletion, or they get merged back and spun off again. Billy Blythe 10:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm not seeing any previous AfD keeps on these.

--Mmx1 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, protect from recreation, etc., etc. This belongs on the NRA's website or something, not wikipedia. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 13:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and all its friends. These deserve, at most, subsections in other articles. If a particular appearance is important then write an article on it, but comprehensive lists aren't useful. Orpheus 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is crap disguised as substance.UberCryxic 15:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe U.S is a gun-ocracy, so this is an important topic.Edison 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL per above. Naconkantari 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all after checking that any genuinely notable (and sourced) references exist in the parent articles (merge if any are needed). WP:NOT a trivia collection. Barno 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Wikipedia will eventually evolve into a bastion of ALL information, great or small. Yes, that includes a biography of every person named "Bob Jones" in the world. There will be 1,000,000,000,000 articles on Wikipedia one day. This list is a perfect example of information that is highly useful to those who truly care about it (for example, gun enthusiasts who are curious about references in popular culture). Ignore all those who wish to suppress information, for they are akin to the book burners of the past. Inclusionist Wikipedians, UNITE! - Cloudreaver 18:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen brother! I second that wholeheartedly. Orca1 9904 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Orca1_9904[reply]
  • Delete Not only do many of the articles contain trivial and often unverifiable information, many of them contain next to nothing! Marcus22 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Unencyclopedic. Isn't there a gun buff site or wiki where this energy can be redirected? —Michael Z. 2006-09-28 21:11 Z
  • Keep Since when are comprehensive lists a bad thing? It's not like we're debating a list called 'Record of Homer Simpson's burps on The Simpsons'. This does have substance, and I'm tired of deletionists monopolizing everything. 76.18.163.141 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research (just for starters).--Glendoremus 23:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keeps the gun pages from getting overshadowed by these lists. I think that a particular objects existence in popular culture is notable. They should be referenced though. AmitDeshwar 00:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom. Listcruft Bwithh 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom & A Man in Black. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created some of these (following the existing pattern) in an attempt to get it away from the main article, but I suppose the proper solution is to remove it completely. We should then also remove the "pop culture" sub setions from the main articles, because it just invites trouble unless it is really notable (e.g. James Bond and his PPK or Dirty Harry and tehe .44 magnum). --Deon Steyn 10:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Protect all per Mmx1's excellent nomination. No need for "in pop culture" sections in individual articles, either (save the truly notable ones, as noted by Deon Steyn above). Why can't people clean up and expand articles on extremely notable subjects like (for example) Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, rather than just producing endless lists like these? ergot 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect all. I'm not opposed to having one single article listing all of these references (e.g. List of firearms in popular culture), as long as we keep the main articles free from these references/lists and all individual "…in pop culture" articles are deleted and protected. —Squalla 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These articles prevent the content from filling up the pages on the individual firearms (look at the histories for the pages if you don't believe me: [6] [7]). Another comment: if we trimmed it down to merely 'notable' appearances, there's a huge grey area there. It's obvious for movies like Enemy at the Gates that the Mosin-Nagant should be listed, as the movie centers around one man's interaction with this rifle. But what about The Boondock Saints and the Desert Eagle? It plays an integral part in the movie, but it's only on-screen for a few minutes? Where does an appearance no longer become notable? --UNHchabo 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Vote originally posted 16:57, September 30, 2006 --UNHchabo 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When a third-party reliable source makes note of the role of the weapon in the movie. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that in the article about the weapon Mosin-Nagant, there's no encyclopedic point in listing movies, television programs, video games, novels, short stories, and paintings it made an appearance in, perhaps not even a point in listing the fine film Enemy at the Gates, when the article already mentions sniper Vasily Zaitsev, who is portrayed in the movie. If there was some cultural or other significance about the weapon's portrayal in the movie, it may be worth mentioning, but just having appeared is not notable in itself. (Mentioning the weapon in the article about the film Enemy at the Gates is a different question, but I notice the model of rifle isn't even significant enough to mention there, except in passing in a trivial bullet-point about a poster-illustrator's mistake)  —Michael Z. 2006-10-01 01:45 Z
    Yes, my point was that this stuff should be kept off of the weapon pages, and the best way to do that is with the pop culture pages. Most movie pages are generally void of weapon mentions, except for action-centric movies like Equilibrium. And about verifibility -- would something like this (a page I made in about 3 minutes) be sufficient to put down that the Desert Eagle was in The Boondock Saints, or do we actually need more than that? --UNHchabo 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiable perhaps, but—please don't take offence—not a reliable source. If three-minute web pages start to be considered suitable citations, then we have a problem with not only 50,000 items of trivia which can easily be deleted to improve the encyclopedia, but the icing on the cake would then be a constantly-growing web of tens of thousands of "authorities" which no one could ever fact-check. Better to honour the word and spirit of encyclopedic notability (see WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR), and keep the trivia elsewhere. —Michael Z. 2006-10-01 16:56 Z
    My point was that from that screenshot it's plainly obvious that the pistols are Desert Eagles. It's the only pistol shaped like that, and according to the canon of the movie, they're fifty caliber (hence .50AE). It's verifiable, as anyone who watches the movie can say for certain that the screenshot is accurate. With those going for us, and the fact that the site is 3rd party (so WP:NOR is taken care of), does it really need to be a "reliable" source? Do I have to be a master armorer, and display my credentials on my site, or be a member of the film crew, to be taken at my word that those pistols are what they are? --UNHchabo 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that you are ignoring Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I haven't seen the movie and I am no armourer, so I don't know if that is a screen shot from the movie or if those are indeed so plainly obviously and unambiguously Desert Eagles. I also have no way of knowing whether the editor who cited this "reference" and its anonymous author knew what they were talking about (nor do I know that the screenwriter who gave Agent Smecker his line knew what he was talking about). What you are advocating is choosing to ignore WP:RS when you feel that it's obvious to you, and to ignore WP:NOR by making your own bogus "references". I agree that some things are so widely accepted that citing references to support them is not a high priority, but I completely disagree that what you're describing constitutes a reference at all. As an example of what a real problem this would be, I keep having to remove armour values from modern AFV articles: they are usually uncited, usually pasted from some mil-fan forum or other, and sometimes an editor will revert-war over them until I eventually track them to their source at an "armour estimates for wargamers" page—quite a lot of work removing false information because someone didn't take these Wikipedia guidelines seriously.  —Michael Z. 2006-10-01 23:16 Z
Will the original "Keep" please attribute his vote? The sig may have gotten lost. As for the argument is that it is a steamvalve; a guideline is being hammered out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_Culture that will provide a better and long-lasting solution. --Mmx1 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. My fault, I neglected to sign the original post. --UNHchabo 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but please review WP:RS. Self-published websites are not considered reliable sources. I could just as easily put up a page saying it was a Baby Eagle, not a Desert Eagle. Who's right? Given the amount of debate over which guns were used in movies and that often you don't get good angles (Which gun did Al Pacino use in HEAT?), visual confirmation is insufficient.--Mmx1 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created for illustrative purposes -- not that I'd like the page to be cited as a source, but if an extensive set of screenshots would suffice. Here's another example from the movie Snatch: let's assume that this page was not created by me. How reliable does my source have to be if it's even more plainly obvious (compared to the previous example) in the shots themselves? --UNHchabo 06:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:RS? —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 14:04 Z
Again, please review the guidelines for reliable sources. Self-published, i.e. personal websites, are not permissible. FYI, the actual desert eagle carries no such markings; the imprint is engraved and of a smaller font:[[8]] Guess that isn't a Desert Eagle, after all. --Mmx1 12:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the stuff about bloating other pages.†he Bread 02:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bread. Michael DoroshTalk 15:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but for different reasons. I think these articles should be trimmed and reformatted into something other than lists, so that we only mention notable appearances (such as signature weapons of main characters, or pivotal roles, or places where they're specifically referenced) but I think that such a trimmed version would have no need to be separated out, and could be integrated back into the main article except for big cases like the AK-47, which has massive massive influence. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote Wikiproject aircraft as linked above: "This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research." I agree with that, just replace top gun with james bond and the F-14 with the Walther PPK. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the new guideline adopted by the Military history WikiProject. Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJeffklib 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per other keeps. The impact of firearms is highly notable to both those interested in guns, and culture. Ve3 04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The big-picture solution is for someone to create a TriviaWiki or PopCultureWiki sister project, so all of this less-encyclopedic information, which does have some value after all, can be offloaded there. An encyclopedia article can have an external link directly to the related page on the sister project, while remaining suitably sober and academic. Anybody know how to get that started? —Michael Z. 2006-10-01 01:51 Z

  • That sounds like an excellent idea. Certainly better than continuing the ongoing vicious cycle of deletion and re-adding. Orca1 9904 05:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Orca1_9904[reply]
  • I also think this would be an excellent idea. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how to go about setting up something like that, either. Maybe ask about it on Village Pump? ergot 14:29, 2 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. W.marsh 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forced conversion[edit]

Another unlikely stub/pov fork from Ed Poor. Nom'd for AFD on the 21st by 82.55.199.200 (talk · contribs), Ed Poor rv'd the AFD tag and added the merge tag listing Religious intolerance as the target, but made no effort to merge the two since. On his original AFD notice User:82.55.199.200 wrote: "This page was created merely to have another link on Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, and only contains what few scraps of information the initiator could think of on the spur of the moment" which I think sums it up nicely. FeloniousMonk 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • FALSE: It was not an AFD tag removed (that would be against the rules, as FM knows. It was the dated prod tag, which specifically permits removal.
  • Comment Did not Ed Poor used to be a bureaucrat? I might be crazy, but I feel like I've seen some POV pushing from him recently. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm right but confused about why. -- Kicking222 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FeloniousMonk. --Mysmartmouth 02:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not going for delete or keep either way but I suspect that a general article about this topic could be written if one took the time. In fact, forced conversions have happened even in religions that one does not even associate with prosyletizing. This might be a good start if people have the time or inclination to work on it and NPOV it. JoshuaZ 03:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with JoshuaZ -- this seems to be an encyclopedic topic (see, e.g., History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Forced_conversions), and I'm leery of deleting it just because it's a stub. TheronJ 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definite POV fork. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We don't delete articles just because they are potentially contentious. And this topic has one hell of a history! Yes, the article needs fleshing out, but that is no reason to delete it. Heck, I'd place money on this article outlasting the article on the Pope's comments. JeffBurdges 11:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Real subject, as you can read for yourself at Requerimiento. Gazpacho 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real subject, even if Uncle Ed did write the first version of the article. It's an important subject, too. It's kinda weird that we're keeping "POV forks" when loony conspiracymongers, wargamers, and standard online crazies write them (note the 9/11 controlled demolition nonsense surviving Afd) but not when guys with religious motives write them, even though those are better document. And not as wrongheaded. VivianDarkbloom 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That may be more of an indication that the 9/11 cranks are just better organized and able to force things into no-consensus keeps and I'm not sure everyone would agree that they are any more "loony" than the religious cases (I'm inclined to think that Ed is completely sane(having strong POV doesn't make you loony), if that counts for anything) but this whole matter gets very close to an NPA issue. 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag to expand.--Húsönd 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research.--Glendoremus 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) oops--wrong topic.[reply]

  • Keep As usual, FeloniousMonk merely (1) asserts that the current article is a POV fork without giving a single reason but (2) refers to previous "POV fork votes" which he has won as if it had a bearing. It only shows that FM doesn't want to see any spin-off articles which clarify anything. Another example of anti-religious POV pushing, abuse of process, etc. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought. Wouldn't it be a good idea to raise this on Wikipedia Project Countering Systemic Bias in Religion? As for articles linking to forced conversion that is because links have been added recently by the main author of this page. Editors of those articles probably don't realise that it is a new page or that there are discussions about deletion or merger. Itsmejudith 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - forced conversion is notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no idea re POV forks or such issues, but in isolation, this topic is clearly encyclopaedic and sufficiently meritorious so as to warrant an article. Badgerpatrol 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, this article is unbalanced enough to be called non-NPOV. But no, it isn't unbalanced enough to be deleted. This topic is perfectly encyclopedic, and there are enough sources to write a good article. Put {{NPOV}} on it, work hard to bring it to neutrality, but don't delete. MaxSem 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A documented article, asserting its importance of a real phenomenem. Also there's no evidence of a merge discussion. JASpencer 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is completely biased and portraying only one side of the picture, and there is very little hope to improve it. TruthSpreaderTalk 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But poor articles on notable subjects should be rewritten, not deleted. Badgerpatrol 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if this is actually elsewhere but the topic is extremely significant, and of course the article needs to be expanded, not deleted. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand so that the Islam section doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. The subject of the article has been an important force in world history. Kla'quot 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expand and improve. --Richard 03:50, 6 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 rapid deletion. —freak(talk) 03:25, Sep. 28, 2006 (UTC)

Hatfield hangover route[edit]

Delete. No reliable sources. Made up in school one day. How-to guide for curing a hangover. Take your pick. Speedy and prod tags both removed. This needs to be sacrificed to the porcelain god. ... discospinster talk 01:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A4L[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism definition for which Google can find only two instances.[10] Delete as per WP:NOR --Allen3 talk 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Governance[edit]

plus some images uploaded by user:FrankButstraen.

Take your pick from the following deletion reasons:

Anyways it is just a load of management-speak gobbledegook. -- RHaworth 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak Delete. This is a bunch of nonsense, but it is original writing, thus someone put work into it, thus it must have some meaning I'm too stupid to comprehend. --Mysmartmouth 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, if nothing else. eaolson 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. OR, and a tissue of vague abstractions. Have the ghosts of hundreds of twelfth century scholastic theologians, with their laborious tail-chasing about Essences and Substances, suddenly come up for reincarnation? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touch cup[edit]

We should delete this. I do not know what it is, so we must therefore omit it from the fountain of knowledge. It is a prerequisite that I personally am an expert on a subject matter before I agree to include it on this website...Djcartwright 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was categorize (seems to be finished, if not and you need the contents of this article, let me know). W.marsh 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towns In Gippsland, Australia[edit]

There's not that many towns in Gippsland to fill an A-Z list. Would be better suited as a category. -- Longhair\talk 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Mysmartmouth 03:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversion to category seems to be the best option. I have fixed the spelling on some of the towns showing that we have articles on them so appropriate to categorise. If kept, should be renamed to Towns in Gippsland, Victoria. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category The list is far from complete. But why would you bother? --Michael Johnson 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , it can be annotated to include population numbers and such, providing additional info a category can't. I do agree the current empty sections aren't working though. Should be renamed List of towns in Gippsland, Australia (Victoria isn't neccesarily a unique name). Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize, pointless as a list. Probably too small to make a decent list even if expanded with population numbers and such, so should be merged to Gippsland if that was the case. However, I don't see any expansion so that's out of the question. Punkmorten 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • convert to navbox. A list or navbox is useful for showing articles that do not exist (yet), so cannot appear in a category. See for example {{Towns of the Riverland}}. Incidentally, all the links should be of the form [[townname, Victoria|townname]] --Scott Davis Talk 14:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert per ScottDavis --Peta 05:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since around the end of August, the list of town names has grown, but no information has been provided for any of the towns. Until we get more information on pages relating to the actual towns, the list is essentially valuless. The list creator hasn't even added any information and seemed to be creating the list out of a sense of "completeness". Although a couple other people may have been able to copy some names out of a phonebook, the page should be deleted, with the caveat that it can certainly be recreated once it can be something more than a valueless list of names. There is no point in making the list into a category. Banaticus 07:46, 6 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Ferrante[edit]

A poet with a lone published poem included in a Poetry Institute of Canada [11] anthology. Unfortunately, at this stage in her career she fails WP:BIO Victoriagirl 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment awww. I think you should keep her and not delete. she is obviously very proud of her one published poem. If you are reading this Emma I wish you the best of luck in your future writing career. I hope they don't delete you. Igbogirl 03:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Affirmations are warm and snuggly, but this is an encyclopedia, not an effort to prove that everyone is notable in their own little way. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 06:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Emma may one day become a great poet, but those anthologies exist for two purposes: a) to make money from the $39.99 shelled out by the poets to buy the anthology; and b) to tap into the desire of poets to get published. Poets with legitimate claims to notability get published in venues of higher quality than this crass money-making scheme (climbs down from soap box). Johnbrownsbody 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We might never have a WP:MUSIC-type guideline on poets, such as how many published poems constitute notability, etc. However, if we did I think the number would likely be higher than one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom plange 00:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDFtypewriter[edit]

No assertion of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE, provided links are to download.com (which does not provide the notability required) and to the software's own website. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am very new to this, what information would you like added? Other software such as FreePDF is listed and IMHO is not nearly as noteable. Thank you. Ctruxaw 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the software been featured in detail in the press? Listing on software sites do not count. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC) - Addressing this, yes, and some links I found with google have been added to Ziff Davis, one of the larger press companies - 71.202.96.143 05:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise and add a lot of info (I found a bunch on Google). --Mysmartmouth 03:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it clearly meets the criteria (based on a Google search) and as far as I can tell, does not contain any misinformation. Merkuron 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no nontrivial independent reviews or sources given in the article. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE and failing to provide reliable sources as per WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. Article created by single purpose account[12]. Encyclopedically non-notable part of notable company. Recommend Speedy Delete under new "shoot on sight" guideline as per "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Bwithh 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although that email was a cry for help, and a call to arms, there should really (IMHO) be a Criterion for SD before we do so. --Storkk 12:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... very nice... just saw CSD G11. Queue Burns: "eeeexcellent". Storkk 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOFT, even with those two ZDnet articles. They are not "about" this particular piece of software. --Storkk 12:06, 4 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 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminatus Now[edit]

Fails the same criteria in WP:WEB as another article under consideration, Abstract Gender. No assertions of notability or sources. Diagonalfish 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has that site got measures in place to stop comic creators from giving good reviews to their own creations or artificially increasing their number of perceived visitors? - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A creator is aloud to post up their own webcomic, but I believe that it was not the case with this one. According to the website, "The ranking algorithm works by considering the number of visits per update. We do this to ensure that popular comics that update infrequently get a fair ranking. Certain other things are taken into consideration when doing comic rankings but we would prefer to keep those secret."[13] ISD
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, simple as that. Batmanand | Talk 10:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:Batman. Exterminatus the article Now. Anomo 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. It's hosted on Comic Genesis, a free web host, even ranking at 7 on that site is meaningless, as the entire free host only manages an Alexa ranking of 8000. This doesn't even beging to touch upon the popularity or notability of such websites such as Soompi or Encyclopedia Dramatica. - Hahnchen 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. We do not have a "keep per Google search" policy or guideline at the present time, nor is The Webcomic List mentioned anywhere in existing policies or guidelines. ergot 14:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or change policy. Hosted on Comic Genises, a site causing it to pass WP:WEB #3 - "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Non-trival due to review process of CG. I want to delete this, but... policy overrules that. Only when I'm trying to make a point, and that point is that wikipoilicy should really be concidered guidelines... --71.98.25.209 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comic Genesis is not "well known." -- Dragonfiend 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a matter of fact, I've seen "hosted on Comic Genesis" used as an argument to delete more than a few times. ergot 13:55, 3 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 easy delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Work: Success Made Easy[edit]

plus Michael Crews Development the book's author.

Nonnotable self-published self-help book. Previous AFD doesn't really govern because the article was previously speedied as empty. It has more content now, but I don' t think it helps. NawlinWiki 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Introduce the author to the concept of oxymoron. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call spam, but that alone isn't criteria for speedy - and per the nom, it's already been speedied out before, so here it is. Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 05:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke the articles from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. And never do business with Michael Crews Development. Apparently his "Success Made Easy" book includes a chapter on freeloading off of somebody else's service. VoiceOfReason 07:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion made easy because this is vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant WP:VSCA. -- Fan-1967 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being unashamed WP:VSCA. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm about to apply my personal test. I don't know yet how it will come out. If this book has an Amazon sales rank number ranking it higher than 200,000 I'll vote to keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon advanced book search on title = "Hard Work: Success Made Easy" and author = "Michael Crews" yields "No results match your search in Books." To those familiar with Amazon search, it is a very, very loose search and is much more likely to yield false positives than to fail to find a real book. This almost certainly means that the book has no ISBN number. ISBN numbers cost about $250 for a block of ten directly from Bowker (and can be bought in smaller numbers from Lulu, etc.) This virtually certifies that this is a self-published or "vanity press" book (except that these days most self-publishers and vanity presses obtain ISBN numbers and do get Amazon listings). Will reconsider vote if someone provides the book's ISBN number and shows that the book can, in fact, be located on Amazon and does have a sales rank above 200,000. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment: Published by "SDG Press". Probably not this one, this one. With its ultra-informative website. I suspect the latter may find itself sued by the former at some point. VoiceOfReason 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't the book title remind folks of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying?" Except, of course, that that title was a joke. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment -- have you seen Little Miss Sunshine? I can't help but picture Michael Crews as Richard Hoover, desperately hawking his nine steps to success. VoiceOfReason 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect back to main article. W.marsh 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale discography[edit]

It's a very short article that lists the limited discography of Ashley Tisdale. Broken out without consensus from the main article, and it's incredibly short (she's done very little recording so far). It's unnecessary. The article even has a note asking for information when there isn't any more information available to add! It was prodded, but prod was removed. Debuskjt 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back and delete. - Debuskjt
  • Merge back into main article, too short for spinning off yet. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current version seems to be identical to the section it was split from. (Merge and redirect if any of the contributors provided edits that weren't included in the original version) - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Wightman[edit]

Former exotic dancer, fraud[14] with an unaccredited degree. Fails WP:BIO. The website and blog links show this is vanity. Arbusto 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect: Lucy Wightman. Arbusto 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just read the Boston Globe article linked to the article. She's had frequent newspaper/magazine/TV coverage up here for years. Vanity argument is damn silly, who writes a Wikipedia entry to report their own indictment and fraudulent credentials, eh? VivianDarkbloom 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this article meets WP:V? The claim that she has a PhD? The claim that she was in Playboy? The she is is allowed to practice as a psychotherapist? Seeing her links, modeling information looks like vanity, and another user reverted information citing WP:AUTOBIO.[15] Arbusto 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator's comments. Also, media coverage - even substantial media coverage by a well-known news source - does not equal encyclopedic notability. e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith. In any case, I ran a Factiva search, and this woman's story has appeared in less than 20 or so articles since February 2005, with the coverage almost entirely limited to Boston area newspapers Bwithh 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO with multiple reliable, verifiable sources. (BTW, I'm amused by that comment "less than 20 or so articles" - 20 newspaper articles that aren't just reprints of each other is a LOT, and easily meets nearly any notability or verifiability standard we have.)
    • Boston Herald article says: "possibly the most famous exotic dancer ever in this town" [16]
    • The Patriot Ledger says "legendary" in regards to her work as a stripper [17] and even writes about psychs that disclaim association with her [18]
    • Fox 25 also says "legendary" and has a whole series on the psychiatrist story: [19] [20] [21] [22]
    • Boston Globe has a very long article with photos: [23]
    • Salon.com has echoes of the Globe [24]
    • People magazine wrote about Lucy's engagement to Cat Stevens before any psychotherapist business [25]
Needing citations for a few facts is not reason to delete the article, at most to delete the uncited facts - the important facts are backed by these notable, reliable sources. Frankly, I don't care about the fraud line so much - she would still be notable for her career as a famous stripper. Being a bodybuilder, radio host, Playboy model, engaged to Cat Stevens, on top of it makes for a very interesting article, even without the psych scandal. By the way, here is a citation for the Playboy appearance [26] AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has been well known in New England for thirty years. The links to her blog and website are a balance to the links of unfavourable articles.Dubhdara 04:35, 3 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 11:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Newsletter[edit]

Previously deleted as non-notable, per previous discussion. The content that was submitted recently does not constitute a speedy for recreating original content, but I felt the article still needed to be put on AfD. However, since I was the admin to originally delete the article, I don't think it's good for conflict-of-interest reasons to put in an opinion, so I abstain. Mo0[talk] 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a monthly "newspaper" hosted by geocities whose name is "daily newsletter". Arbusto 03:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes no assertion of importance or notability. Hosted at Geocities, so it probably has none. "Sent out using WordPad software." Is that some strange way of saying it was a text file sent as an email attachment? eaolson 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why not advertise in The Daily Newsletter? With a circulation of over 6 people, it's an opportunity you'd be a fool to miss! But that's not all! The Daily Newsletter now boasts: all-editorial content, to avoid truth-clutter; 3 pages instead of 1, for greater word-use; state-of-the-art word processing technology, to conserve crayons and a bright and breezy A4 format, for ease of photocopying. -- IslaySolomon 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above comments. As the nominatior of the first AfD discussion, I had requested a comparison to deleted content; the result being this second nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - boring I know but for all the above reasons Nigel (Talk) 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... *blinks*. No establishment of notability, at all, reads like a blog and there's even a request to redirect it to the user's talk page (which has pricing information!). Good grief, that's gotta take some pluck. I'd suggest the creator concentrates on getting a proper website set up, a proper web-address and concentrates on getting some good writing done. The promotion will happen in time but WP is not for airing everyone's pet projects. WP:NN Spamcruftvertisement. QuagmireDog 11:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in my opinion) Look, you guys:
  1. Why don't you READ the newsletter before deleting it!
  2. If the Daily Newsletter EVER becomes popular, you'll regret doing this!!
Juwiki September 29, 2006 7:06 PM UTC
  • (1) I would, but it's not online. (2) That's when it would deserve a Wikipedia article. Until then, it's just a blog by email. eaolson 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • post by Juwiki confirms my vote as it says effectively that it is not yet popular despite the ad on the user page Nigel (Talk) 07:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could send you a FREE edition, or maybe you should look at my Userpage again...

User:Juwiki: September 30th, 2006 8:28 AM CT

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

The result was Rapid fire deletion - per nom (27 google hits - my cat has more?). Glen 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weareyellow[edit]

Nonexistant charity. A "mega-charity" with exactly 27 google hits, none of which are relevant. weareyellow.com is a parked page and weareyellow.org doesn't resolve. Article was revised to list a "teaser" site, which is a blank page. Article now says that the charity will launch "sometime before December," in which case it's crystalballism. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Come back when the article's subject actually exists. eaolson 03:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture[edit]

I am nominating the following "Military Hardware in Popular Culture" pages, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically, it is not a directory of prop appearances.

This follows the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A-10_Thunderbolt_II_in_popular_culture as well as the ongoing (recently nominated) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture for numerous "Firearm X in Popular culture".

While I cannot rule out the existence of an item of pop culture that prominently featured a piece of hardware in the way that Top Gun featured the F-14, none of these listed here rise to the occasion. Even if it were, it would deserve a 1-liner in the main article. A wholesale list of prop appearances is irrelevant and often speculative. What's next? Honda Accord in popular culture? Ikea furniture in popular culture? I am willing to accede that a reliable source may make a statement about the ubiquity of some piece of hardware in culture; such a statement should go in the original article. However, a comprehensive list of such appearances is unencyclopedic.

These are not articles. That much is clear. A comprehensive list is unmaintainable, difficult to verify, and ultimately original research unless the prop director can be quoted on the matter. Can they be converted to lists or categories? Given the verifiability problems and notability issues, I say not. Do we need a category for each prop?

Co-nominated:

Mmx1 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and all lists of random objects appearing in random series. It's not encyclopedic or necessary, and hopefully this AFD also discourages similar lists in the articles for the objects themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (edit: including the co-nominated) Orpheus 09:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia is well known for its pop culture info. In fact, it is really only valuable as a pop culture encyclopedia. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's a real, rigorous, scientific reference source. This kind of article is the future of Wikipedia. Let it be. Billy Blythe 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, keep. I created one of the articles in question, and contributed to several of the others. I think other people will agree with me that it would be a slap in the face to all those who gave thier time and effort for these articles to have them deleted. Personally, I think this recent rash of deleting any and all 'pop culture references' is a rather closed-minded and disturbing trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orca1 9904 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. RexNL 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom Marcus22 21:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all —Michael Z. 2006-09-28 21:11 Z
  • Note - afd notification was not placed on FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and A Man in Black. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Eusebeus 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this useful. Metahacker 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, yes, Wikipedia is known for its pop culture info. Many of the things I've read that are critical of Wikipedia ridicule its fascination with trivia and pop culture references, and they are right to do so. It's petty and useless, and while people like Billy may not think Wikipedia has anything useful other than pop culture, I think most of us know better. Recury 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear! —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 17:28 Z
  • Delete all per nom, agreeing completely with the general sentiment. Sandstein 09:49, 2 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 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H Christ and the Four Hornsmen of the Apocalypse[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected. MER-C 10:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn[edit]

Unnecessary list. Nothing here isn't sufficiently covered in gay pornography - half the list is comprised of general terms that could describe any sort of pornography. Crystallina 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom, but per the nom, I'm not sure what could be merged in that's otherwise unique to gay porn. --Dennisthe2 05:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady from Sockholm[edit]

I am relisting this because the article is an advertisement worded basically the same as the press release and it should be deleted quickly: pr web press release -THB 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Non-notable, vanity article THB 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's one claim to notability, the Slamdance Film Festival award, wasn't even linked. It may be eligible for inclusion on that basis (I dunno), as the proposed guidelines at WP:NOTFILM don't make it clear whether that's enough to merit inclusion or not. Badbilltucker 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page has been updated to include external links to several notable newspaper reviews of the film. Also, internal links to some of the film festivals that it screened at were added. The title is coming out on DVD in October 2006. --66.245.115.2 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Peta, the title obviously is within the guidelines now. Notably "The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as articles in newspapers or magazines of importance, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." In the external links section there are a number of film reviews listed and a link to a television interview conducted by Fox6 news in Birmingham.--66.245.115.2 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed the last "do not delete" to "comment". You can't vote twice. -THB 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Film clearly meets WP:NOTFILM#Released Films #1 and possibly #3. KarlBunker 18:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't meet any of these criteria. There must be multiple articles published in media of importance or have won a major award. This film absolutely and without question fails notability. (Lengthy copy and paste of the linked-to page elided. Uncle G 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)) -THB 23:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - THB, I have offered several articles plus a television interview and a radio interview. How is this not notable? What does "of importance" mean to you? The publications I cited are indeed "of importance." For example, Creative Loafing has a circulation of 131,000 and is the second-most broadly distributed newspaper in Georgia; The Quad City Times has a circulation of 61,366; Columbus Alive distributes 55,000 copies weekly; and Film Threat was named "one of the top 5 movie web sites" by The Wall Street Journal. I'm sure these publications would be surprised to hear that they are not notable. --66.245.115.2 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance is not based solely on circulation. Only the Quad City Times qualifies as an important publication. Free classified ad papers like Creative Loafing and Columbus alive are NOT of importance. Quad City plus "Film Threat" equals two. More importantly, you're not supposed to create an article about yourself or your own film, or vote on it being notable. If it's not notable enough for someone unrelated to the topic to write an article, it's not notable. These are objective criteria and you shouldn't take it personally. -THB 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THB, I did not create the article. A festival-goer who saw the film created it and then relayed what he had done to me. I have monitored it periodically to make sure that the information remains correct. I do take it personally because you are not providing enough information for me to met your "objective criteria." Plus, why is an "alternative weekly" such as Creative Loafing or Columbus Alive not a notable publication just because they are free -- that is a very odd way of determining relevance when these publications have very large distribution. There is a page about alternative weeklies in Wikipedia Alternative_weekly so they must be of some importance. Also, what about the film's coverage on Fox 6 News in Birmingham -- that should equal three mentions of relevance in your standards. In my estimation, "three" equates to "multiple non-trivial published works". In fact, two equates to multiple. --66.245.115.2 03:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for the multiple postings, but this lack of clarity is very annoying to me. I followed the link provided above to "reliable published sources" and the film has definitely met that: WP:RS If there is documented information on what is classified as "of importance" please provide a link.--66.245.115.2 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing reliable sources for gathering and documenting encyclopaedic information and sources of importance for ascertaining a film's notability.

    Non-importance has nothing to do with cost--most respected newspapers are available free online.

    You're missing the forest for the trees: What you're not grasping is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising medium for your marketing efforts. Is "The Lady from Sockholm" an encyclopaedic topic? No. Might it be at some point in the future? Yes, if you get enough real newspapers/national TV shows/syndicated radio broadcasts/film festivals/theatres/movie companies to give it attention.

    Bottom line, Wikipedia is NOT the place for you to get attention for your film. It has nothing to do with your film, it has to do with Wikipedia. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia in general and its policies and guidelines in particular and you'll better understand.

    Maybe this will help: Wikipedia:Notability Look at "Rationales". You really shouldn't even be editing an article about your own film in the first place, nor commenting on it, especially anonymously, without registering, and without announcing your affiliation. Again, that's not personal, it's because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

    By way of proving my point, very few people care about the subject of the article enough to bother to vote on it. -THB 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this is an "encyclopedia" then the people who are considered experts on the topic should have something to contribute to the discussion. As I mentioned previously, I did not add the title to this catalogue and I do not know why it has been targeted for "deletion" when it obviously meets the criteria.--66.245.115.2 03:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had nothing to do with the article, then why does it sound exactly like your press release??? pr web press release -THB 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no idea who you are, but you obviously have something against this listing. I did not say that I never contributed to the listing. I said that someone who saw the film added the article and then told me what they did. Obviously they used information from the official website to create the listing. As a person who uses wikipedia for information, I know how things can get severely messed up. So, I have checked the listing periodically to make sure it remains correct -- and when THB marked it for deletion I added information to make sure that it remained on wikipedia. What's the problem??? --66.245.115.2 04:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the problem: Wikipedia is not supposed to contain "listings" of your 71 minute sock-puppet film, it is supposed to contain encyclopaedia articles. Do you understand what an encyclopaedia is vs. a Creative Loafing newspaper? -THB 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me and well sourced. Perhaps a little clean up is in order but should not be deleted.Bagginator 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep (for now) Looks notable in the entertainment world. Featured a few times in Film Threat (a respected online film resource) and in some network-affiliated local media outlets and shown at a bunch of internationally recognized film festivals. I've seen alot lesser notable films with articles. I don't care for the press-release aspects of the article, though. Marriedtofilm 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This will be my last word here. After doing research on some of the posters it looks like this "article" has gotten caught in a pissing match between two other wikipedians. One added a category to the page and low and behold a couple of hours later "The Lady from Sockholm" is listed as an AFD by someone the first person is in mediation with. This explains a lot because I couldn't understand why there seemed to be such a vehemence coming from one poster. In addition to listing the article for deletion they have been delisting links to the article that are completely valid (a link from the film's distributor and a link from the sock puppet page). I know this doesn't necessarily relate to whether the article is a keep or delete, but I wanted to bring this information to the surface as it relates to their being a certain amount of initial prejudice against the article. As previously stated, I believe the film meets at least one of the guidelines outlined at WP:NOTFILM because of the amount of press it has received from all media outlets (print, tv, radio and web) and which are clearly linked from the article. Your decision. --66.245.115.2 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keepi think it fits but needs worrk Jeffklib 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The almost word-for-word insertion of this 16 month-old press release in Wikipedia is grounds for immediate deletion: [27] -THB 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's First All-Sock Puppet Feature Film to Premiere

World's first all-sock puppet feature film to premiere in Atlanta. Amusing and acceptable for all ages, The Lady from Sockholm successfully blends comedy with classic film-noir themes of alienation, moral corruption and doomed love.

Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) May 19, 2005 -- The film noir-inspired comedy The Lady from Sockholm, the world's first all-sock puppet feature film makes its global premiere at 5:00 p.m. on June 12, 2005 at the 800 seat Rialto Center for the Performing Arts.

Set in 1943 during the height of Wool War II, the pun-filled story follows the exploits of Terrence M. Cotton, a knee-high in debt sock puppet gumshoe who is hired by wealthy socialite Heelda Brum to unravel the mystery surrounding the disappearance of her husband, Darnell. The story uses puppets, humor and puns to make a contemporary statement about how prejudice can damage a society.

Amusing and acceptable for all ages, The Lady from Sockholm successfully blends comedy with classic film-noir themes of alienation, moral corruption and doomed love. Referencing The Lady from Sockholm's "gorgeous film noir style," the Atlanta Film Festival, the premiere's sponsor, deemed the project "one punny movie that's entertaining for kids, but chock full of witty humor for adults to enjoy all on their own."

The screenplay for the film has already won numerous accolades including an "Award of Excellence" (Top 10) from the prestigious Slamdance screenwriting competition.

The one show only June 12 screening will be attended by the film's cast and crew with a Q&A session to follow. The film was shot in Atlanta under the direction of Emory University film instructors Eddy Von Mueller and Evan Lieberman. Lynn Lamousin, owner of the film's production company, KITTYBOY Creations, Inc., wrote and produced the project.

In a recent phone interview Terrence M. Cotton, the male sock lead, said, "When I moved from stage to screen and accepted the lead in The Lady from Sockholm I stepped into the role of a lifetime." The two-time Toeny Award winning sock added, "It’ll be great to see Eddy and Evan again — those guys keep me in stitches!"

Tickets for the world premiere of The Lady from Sockholm can be purchased in advance at http://www.atlantafilmfestival.com or in person at the Rialto on the day of the screening.

For additional information visit The Lady from Sockholm website at http://www.sockholm.com to view video clips, high resolution production stills and bios for all primary cast and crew.

Contact: Lynn Lamousin 404-624-9464 e-mail protected from spam bots http://www.sockholm.com

    • Comment I'll stick to my "Soft Keep." As mentioned above, I don't like the press release appearance. Being worded as a press release only means the article needs a re-write, not the subject isn't worthy of an article. --Marriedtofilm 02:58, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case Report Form[edit]

No useful content, nothing really links here (the article is only linked from "See Alsos", seems to exist primarily to advertise a commerical service via external link MastCell 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and ditch the external link. Content appears encyclopedic, although it borders on dictionary definition. The external link appears to be commercial linkspam of some sort, at the least not entirely relevant. I don't know what the Google result threshold is, but "case report form" turns up 189,00 results[28]. There's also a print reference. However, cleanup would probably do the article some good. --Keitei (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the remark, I hope the cleanup of the external link clarifies the issue (see also German Wikipedia CRF article) ? There are articles linking to "CRF" which not existed, so I created the inital article as a start. It should be marked as a stub? Pvosta 07:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note: I am trying to create articles explaining aspects of a clinical trial, is this considered wrong? Pvosta 10:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important term, which can certainly be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. The wiki content on clinical trials sorely needs expansion. If clean-up and/or removal of promotional links are necessary, then tag accordingly. Espresso Addict 04:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Case Report Form seems to be a recognized and commonly used term in biomedical research and clinical trials. The Google search for "case report form" turns up many listings related to public health and epidemiology, across many different sites and even different countries. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 very close, hard to say there's a consensus to delete. As for verifiability, as long as the articles on these people claim they're graffiti artists and that's not challenged, I don't think the list is at fault for being unverifiable. W.marsh 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of graffiti artists[edit]

Listcruft that can't pass WP:V -Nv8200p talk 04:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I don't think this is listcruft. There's definitely such a thing as a notable graffiti artist and this article does the things that lists do better than categories. Having said that, there are such enormous problems of verifiability and notability in this area that this list is an unmaintainable vanity magnet. Why on earth is this listed along side this? If the blue links lead to NN individuals, how an we verify that the red links are deserving of inclusion on the list, let along articles of their own? Some graffiti artist AfDs are definately in order. -- IslaySolomon 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with much of what IslaySolomon says. However, many of these artists have their own articles, and are therefore presumably verifiable and notable. If 'the blue links lead to NN individuals', then that's a separate issue for those articles to be AFD'd. The big problem for this list is definitely the verifiability/notability. I'd be happy to see the list trimmed back to only blue-links, which would get rid of all the non-notable cruft.--duncan 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the nominator. This is indeed listcruft, and the fact that most (if not all) of the artists only use pseudonyms makes this impossible to verify. JIP | Talk 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's been grafitti art appearing in books and on book covers (as per a recent AFD) meaning the artist who made them is arguably notable. Having a pseudonym doesn't neccesarily exclude one from being verifiable as Lemony Snicket should show. All in all, the concerns mentioned can be addressed by something as the Wikipedia:Cleanup Task Force instead of deletion.
  • Comment: And a reminder, cruft isn't a reason for deletion as what is and isn't cruft is highly subjective. A single word 'non-notable' should similarly not be used as a reason without facts to back it up as per Stifles excellent essay User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Base your nomination on objective facts. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:V. Whispering(talk/c) 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed to No Vote. Changed to Delete. I've removed the red names (but they keep coming back). Likewise I fear a good number of the remaining blue names refer to artists who have articles on Wikipedia but who are, nevertheless, unverifiable. We need to cover graffiti art; but it has to meet the same standards as other art movements/artists. This looks a vehicle for abuse. (By way of example; the first 'blue' name that I've looked up - Blade - appears to be more or less completely unverifiable and quite probably insufficiently notable to be here. (Check edit history of article Blade, for example)). Looks like there are quite a few more names to be deleted should someone have the time to look into this. Marcus22 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) re-edited own comments Marcus22 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per JIP. —Khoikhoi 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus22, good work on tidying up the names. If some articles aren't sourced etc, then they need their own AFD or improvement. Some of the graffiti artist articles are indeed verified, notable etc, and should remain. So in that case a list of those articles would be useful, which this is. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here by deleting a list of names just because some names might not merit being on the list.--duncan 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, Duncan. And I'm all for graffiti art being covered properly on Wikipedia. But I'm not sure that this article serves much purpose and it is a vehicle for abuse. It would be better if such a list were trimmed down to the main artists and included as a section in a full article on graffiti art. (So that would be a tidy up and merge from me iff such an article already exists). Marcus22 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is a completely uninformative list of pseudonyms. Wikipedia doesn't need lists of anonymous people whose claim to fame is vandalism. Devanatha 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Surely a list of graffiti artists can cut it alongside such lists as 'iranian philosophers', 'herbs and spices' and 'hobbies'. I fear that graffiti related pages are being unfairly culled due to the fact that for example someone from Canada can't Google a graffiti artist from Spain and therefore finds the artist to be not notable. Meanwhile the artist remains clearly visible (and therefore notable) to the thousands of people who bother to look up each day. Due to the illegal nature of their actions, prominent graffiti artists tend not to publish their identities without their consent and steer clear of such items as personal webpages or a 'myspace', as a result their identities often do not extend beyond their chosen psuedonyms, unless discovered or published by police.

To solve this problem I suggest there be a seperate list of guidelines as to what makes a graffit artist notable, as the conventional wikipedia guidelines do not seem apply well to graffiti artists. Time and time again have I seen what I would think to be a notable graffiti artist removed from wikipedia by groups of people who don't seem prepared or are unable to gather their information from a source other than the internet, a domain in which graffiti artists and their indentities can rarely be found or verified. I also feel that due to the fact the graffiti is illegal in most places, people have an inherent negative attitude toward graffiti art, which they then associate with the article. PeterPartyOn 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I disagree. If we allow separate criteria for what makes a graffiti artist notable, then we must allow separate criteria for what makes an environmental artist notable, for what makes a renaissance artist notable etc. etc. And then we end up in a mess. Marcus22 10:07, 4 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition (current)[edit]

User:Drcaldev didn't answer when I asked how this was distinct from Prohibition (drugs). I'm guessing based on his recent edits that he believes it's inappropriate to talk about current laws as "drug prohibition" because alcohol and tobacco are drugs but are not prohibited. If that's the reason, there is no need for separate articles. Prohibition (drugs) never claims that all drugs have ever been prohibited and is therefore the appropriate article regardless of any questions about the title.

  • Delete as a POV fork. Gazpacho 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being more of Drcaldev's agenda-pushing. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite POV pushing. -- Kicking222 04:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and POV. --Dennisthe2 05:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, conspiracy theory and the creator refuses to answer questions on it's validity. Ben W Bell talk 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extremely POV. OBM | blah blah blah 10:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV soapboxing by a single topic editor trying to push his own minority views on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD A7 by Woohookitty. MER-C 10:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbeque FC[edit]

Total nonsense. A previous version of the article had Barcelona's shield and a link to a weird website. But there is enough nonsense left to qualify for speedy deletion. -- RHaworth 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sport's team's name is completely non-sense because this kinds of sport group name is not existed. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at best this is a very minor social team trying for their proverbial 15 minutes (the number of what could be in-jokes suggests as much). More than likely, it's nonsense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 04:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. --Dennisthe2 05:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Barbeque FC is a very successful football team of the last few years in the RubaiSport Premier League in Canberra. The name came about from an object (made of brick and cement) that was thought to be a barbeque at the school where most of the current player attended. From then on the group had been based around the 'barbeque'. In 2002 we formed the Barbeque FC and since then the team have been playing in the RubaiSport League system. Rubaisport (Talk) 17:50, 28 September 2006 (AEST)
  • Delete per nom, Non-notable team, no matter how much of a laugh it is to play for. OBM | blah blah blah 08:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, probable bad faith nom, single-use account. Ashibaka tock 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mashimaro[edit]

Delete nn characters--Cdfx 04:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 2.36 million ghits, most seem relevant. MER-C 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Google hits into the millions (and that's not counting results in Asian languages). The book Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052161760X) even cites Mashimaro as an example of a successful merchandising character which originated on the internet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep --Easyas12c 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nucka[edit]

Apparent neologism. Dict def. Unsourced. Can't find any support for this via Google. Author points out the defintion is at Urban Dictionary, but don't think that's generally considered a reliable source.

Also nominating Brazy for the same reason. That page says it was created by the "blood gang" but never explains who or what that is. eaolson 04:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/comment I actually have heard "nucka" multiple times before, which may or may not be odd for my upper-middle-class Caucasian upbringing. I've never heard "brazy". Note that I have no opinion on whether or not these should be transwikied, but they should definitely be deleted. Even if the words do exist, their articles could never be more than dicdefs. -- Kicking222 05:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, useless slangcruft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism and dictdef. JIP | Talk 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. MER-C 10:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an (urban) dictionary. -- IslaySolomon 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 12:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, dictionary, etc. SquidSK (1MC•log) 23:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duhon 10:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per nom and {{db-bio}}. Glen 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswaldo Castillo[edit]

Non notable regular movie reviewer on a radio show, fails WP:BIO. Oswaldo Castillo + Carolla (of the radio show) gives 15 distinct Google hits... Fram 05:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of insular languages[edit]

Contested PROD. Orphaned list article covering languages that happen to be spoken on islands. This would make sense if there was some implied (non-OR) claim that languages on islands are somehow special (like that they develop differently from languages elsewhere, etc.) No such claim is made here, and to the best of my knowledge not in the linguistic literature either. Therefore, the subject of this list is not a coherent encyclopedic topic, it's listcruft. We could just as well have "languages spoken on mountains", "languages spoken in plains", "languages spoken in swamps", "languages spoken in deserts", "languages spoken near rivers"... Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless referenced. I find that "insular" is used frequently in ethnography e.g. about Polynesia, not so much about larger places like Indonesia. For languages, "insular language" most often is just a colloquialism. "Insular" occurs most often in terms of Celtic language to distinguish the varieties on the Isles from the varieties on the Continent. But Google doesn't show that they're classified this way in any formal sense. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless an expert confirms this is valid and used classification. At first I though it is about language isolate. Indonesian doesn't feel as a proper example. Pavel Vozenilek 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent credible sourcing. There are in any case few enough that they could be included in the parent article if only I could find it... Guy 13:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the inclusion of languages spoken at location X seems over the top, unless as others proposed there is proof presented that states these languages develop uniquely from all others. --NuclearUmpf 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, tagged as such. This is a total waste of time to discuss this article. It's clearly a speedy delete candidate under A3. This is following process for process's sake, and it's ridiculous. WP:IAR certainly applies here, as much as I hate that essay. Billy Blythe 14:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Duja 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention of English! Also no definition of precisely what percentage of speakers (on Island:off Island) is needed to become "Insular" :) - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this is not speediable. It also seems like a pretty interesting subject if, per above, references can be found for it. Let it run its course, and if no source appears, delete the article. JDoorjam Talk 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a second I also thought this was meant as a list of language isolates, but the article on that phenomenon contains a list.--T. Anthony 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree this was probably meant as a list of language isolates. This shouldn't exist as a list anyway; if anything, it should be a category. Delete. Alba 20:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there already is a Category:Language isolates. However lists do serve purposes categories don't. If you check the list at the article language isolate you'll see that it contains languages that do not yet have articles. A category couldn't do that. That said the list in the article is sufficient.--T. Anthony 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyway, I don't think language isolates is what the author of this page was after. He really meant the geographical definition. The only remote chance for that criterion to make sense would be if it was restricted to languages that are the only language on the island where they are spoken, and thus in geographical isolation from language contact. That might conceivably influence their development (a claim that has been made with respect to Icelandic). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like OR, right down to the term. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:18, 1 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Style[edit]

It is almost a direct copy of the Urban Dictionary definition. I would guess it falls under "things I made up in school one day". I've never heard of it, it sounds implausible and there are no significant Google hits. Strait 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things etc etc etc. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Etc etc etc made up in school one day. Also: i thought this article was going to be about goth fashion. How wrong was i? OBM | blah blah blah 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ummmmk. Danny Lilithborne 11:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge at best. And it hardly rates an "article" of its own.~ Brother William 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not an Urban Dictionary mirror, no assertion of notability made, seems obscure. Perhaps the participants need to be shown how to cook a steak. QuagmireDog 11:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:V, and I'm sorry I clicked on that link.-- danntm T C 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an (urban) dictionary. -- IslaySolomon 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bela Lugosi says delete and so do I per WP:NOT. Whispering(talk/c) 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dickins[edit]

Non-notable municipal election candidate. Never been elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO Atrian 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, maybe if he gets elected he should be here. Blowmonkey 07:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable until elected. MER-C 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation if he should win. Bearcat 05:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nolan[edit]

After some thought, I believe that this victim of either an accident or homicide to be insufficiently notable, as tragic as the circumstances might be. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly delete per nom. MER-C 10:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 11:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some unsourced supposition in there as well. Very sad but not article worthy. Spartaz 21:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Chow-Yiu[edit]

Potentially non-notable bio, author asserts no notability but there May be some which is why there is no speedy. Also unverifiable to this point Canadian-Bacon t c e 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject appears to satisfy the criterion of "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" in WP:BIO per page the article is linked to. Don't know who wrote the article, but it's on the Official HKU website. I'm sure some more research will uncover much of note. Ohconfucius 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ohconfucius... needs a great deal of expansion though. --Storkk 12:13, 4 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/redirect. W.marsh 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tutter[edit]

totally insignificant, talks about as if real actor. Alfakim-- talk 06:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laiq Ur Rehman[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article, 94 google hits, no real assertion of notability. Delete per WP:BIO. GTBacchus(talk) 06:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Vanity. MER-C 10:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom plange 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jain.rajul 06:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocho spelling[edit]

OR. no response to request for verification, sources, references. --Rockero 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete confused, self-contradictory mess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is a real phenomenon, it should probably be merged with Spanglish as that's basically what this is describing. Danny Lilithborne 11:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect.~ Brother William 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a neologism. While the phenomenon may be real, there are no other references to "pocho spelling" that I can find. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Spanglish. There doesn't seem to be any non-OR to merge. --Storkk 12:15, 4 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 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bueller[edit]

Removed prod with no summary, doesn't seem like a person notable enough. A good number of ghits, but they seem to be related to Ferris Bueller or other unrelated items. Fails WP:BIO --Daniel Olsen 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failure of WP:BIO (as the editor who placed the prod).Erechtheus 07:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO Notability says that personalities are notable of they have "a large fan base" or "name recognition". DJ is known inside dance radio community. KNGY tells us that "Airplay on Energy 92.7 influences the playlists of radio stations and dance clubs nationally." and "Energy 92.7 is the most-listened-to dance/electronic radio station on the West Coast." Some people may not be into dance music, but it seems that the #1 rated DJ on an influential dance radio station is deserving of at least a stub. 68.193.230.41 07:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Those items are in the actor/television personality section, so they would not apply to a DJ. Even then, we have seen nothing to demonstrate either item. Erechtheus 07:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Marcus22 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least move to Bueller (radio personality) (or similar). I think probably 95% of people who type "Bueller" into Wikipedia are looking for Ferris Bueller. Virtually all the google hits I looked through for a search on "Bueller" concerned Ferris. A google search without quotes on Bueller 92.7 returns only 145 hits, so I say non-notable. Cool3 21:22, 2 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 Result was Speedy delete WP:CSD:A7 Gwernol 01:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Circle[edit]

Yet another Flash cartoon. No effort made whatsoever to claim that it passes WP:WEB. It was deprodded based on having 50K hits on some site or another, but besides that not being much of a lifetime total, there's no independent coverage in reliable sources, making it thoroughly non-notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, popularity on Newgrounds is neither here nor there, main site has no Alexa ranking, no assertion of notability made via secondary sources. Nice to see they interact with their fans, but WP's not a listing for every series of flash cartoons that ever became popular. QuagmireDog 11:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely Nigel (Talk) 12:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:WEB. --Simonkoldyk 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've listed some facts about the website on the article's discussion page. It is a popular up and coming webtoon site that is notable for the fact that it has a conscious policy for producing family friendly cartoons (something that is, literally, notable compared to the majority of their peers. Same goes for, as QuagmireDog said, their level of fan interaction. Johnmazz 01:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People put time into this series page and it deserves to stay. Don't you guys have better things to do then just delete wiki pages?68.85.22.209 01:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should stay becuase its a good page to learn the history of the Neptune circle group! Don't delete it! Keep it cause if it was deleated then people wouldn't like it!!!! So keep in on wikipedia!!!67.185.167.197 01:56, 1 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. W.marsh 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulana Sarwar Hussain[edit]

Non notable, nothing related on Google. — Wackymacs 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indus World School[edit]

Withdraw nomination. After considering the discussion below and considering recent changes made to the article by various editors including myself, I believe that there is enough notability and potential to warrant keeping the article. I still believe that the article needs expansion and that it needs to be reviewed to remove any hint of advertising and self-promotion but that can be addressed via the appropriate tags.

NB: For those who might be unfamiliar with the AFD process, my withdrawal of nomination of this article for AFD does NOT end this AFD debate. I cannot close the debate once it has started. The debate continues until a consensus for speedy keep is reached OR an admin closes the debate.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this debate.

--Richard 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability Failed WP:SCHOOL when I nominated. Addition of references suggests that it might barely pass WP:SCHOOL IF material in those references are added to change the tone of the article away from being of a commercial promotion of the school and towards a more encyclopedic tone. Richard 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some of the material from the references. --Richard 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of any assertion of notability is a speedy deletion criterion, that only applies to people, bands, and clubs/groups. It is not a criterion for normal deletion, and it does not apply to other things. Uncle G 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Notability is relevant to all subjects although the criteria for notability may differ from subject to subject.

    However, I am on the brink of withdrawing my nomination after looking at the references which were added subsequent to the nomination. To pass criterion #1 of WP:SCHOOL, some of the information in the references should be included in the article itself. Also important would be taking material from the references regarding the claims of unique pedagogical approach claimed by the school, thus satisfying criterion #4 of WP:SCHOOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 2006-09-28 15:48:45

    • You are disagreing with a straw man, not with what I actually wrote. You are conflating notability with assertions of notability. There is a difference between an article on a subject that is not notable and an article that doesn't assert the notability of its subject. The latter only applies to the speedy deletions of certain, specific, classes of articles. Uncle G 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not interested in mincing words and getting into a wide-ranging policy debate about notability and criteria for deletion. The bottom line is that, if the article doesn't explain why the school is notable and therefore encyclopedic, I'm keeping my vote at "Delete". The information that would satisfy me is in the two articles that are referenced. Stop arguing with me and improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards and I'll change my vote. --Richard 21:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yet more straw men. This is not a policy debate about notability. This is you using a rationale for deletion that is not a reason for deletion, and your error being explained to you. Uncle G 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, since you seem intent on educating me, please do so. Let me jumpstart the dialogue by providing the Wikipedia sources I am relying on and you can show me the error of my reasoning. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Notability is not policy; it's only a guideline. However, if you read it, there is nothing in it that limits it to "certain, specific classes of articles" while excluding schools. Also, if you look at criterion #1 of WP:SCHOOL, what it's getting at essentially is notability even if it doesn't say so explicitly. Or, perhaps you're getting hung up on "notability" per se. The core may be about reliable sources. You've got marginally reliable sources. They are marginal, because the source articles still sound like regurgitated press releases with thinly veiled promotional intent. Now, all I'm asking is that you lift the points made in these marginally reliable sources and put them in the article. Why is this so hard? --Richard 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some apologies: On reflection, I understand User:Uncle G's point about "assertions of notability" vs. "notability". Apparently, some articles could be about notable subjects but still be candidates for speedy deletion if the article doesn't assert notability? Sounds crazy to me but that is apparently what the current policy means and what User:Uncle G has been trying to say. Note, however, that this is not a CSD debate but an AFD debate and, as I stated above, notability counts. I think Uncle G will agree with this. I am not convinced that this new school is notable or, skip "notable", the article does not pass WP:SCHOOL in its current form. Also, I still maintain that the article reads like an advertisement and therefore fails Wikipedia is not an advertising medium and Wikipedia is not a directory.
Also, I note that my responses above have addressed Uncle G as if he were the primary author of the article when, in fact, he has only added sources. Nonetheless, if he believes the article should be kept, then he should add text to raise it to Wikipedia quality. --Richard 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails WP:SCHOOL. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 08:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Keep, my prior vote was a little too hasty, and recent changes assert notability. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per the article, it just about satisfies the primary criterion, albeit that there is less source material here than there is for many schools. Uncle G 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High school. There are hundreds of precedents for keeping them. It is beyond belief that these disruptive nominations go on and on and on. Piccadilly 22:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that every high school in the world deserves an article in Wikipedia? I don't think that's what WP:SCHOOL suggests. --Richard 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOL suggests that any school with enough stuff written about it to create a meaningful article should be kept. Most high schools fit this bill, although some don't. It's nice to see an Asian school that's sufficiently verifiable. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current version of this article looks fine, go hash out this debate at WP:SCHOOLS. RFerreira 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well-constructed article describing a creative and innovative educational program. Nomination acknowledges that WP:SCHOOL would be met by improvements to article. Alansohn 03:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Is a for profit school therefore WP:CORP should control and this fails it. JoshuaZ 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC) keep The most relevant guideline is most likely WP:CORP but looking at the linked sources indicates that it does meet WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The hindu asserts notability.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as nominator Richards says. Mereda 06:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please change or strike out your vote above. Thanx. --Richard 07:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and say prayer for cleanup. W.marsh 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sachchiyamata[edit]

This article has been nominated for delation because 1) its poor writing and numerous typos make it almost unreadable, and 2) the title word does not appear to exist on a Google search. Nehwyn 08:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audit methodology for Sustainable Transport, Town Traffic Test[edit]

I'm sure we could write an article on audit methodology for sustainable transport, but this would not be it. References to blogspot etc., and no actual substance (this is more like a meta-article describing what an article would include). The (here) link to TRL will probably never be filled since it's copyright, I usually pay around £25 for TRL reports. As far as I can see this is an attempt to create a Wiki version of a single TRL report. This was speedied at Town Traffic Test, but the creator seems intent and recreated it both there and here so let's see if it's just me who thinks this is a problem. Guy 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adipoli[edit]

Little or no context and appears to be no more than a dictionary entry Paulus 09:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary.--Jusjih 09:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per nom. MER-C 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Newfoundland & Labrador[edit]

This seems to be a satire on WP religion articles, about a fictitious church. There are no references or Google hits. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: yes, a move to WP:BJAODN sounds appropriate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dhartung, unless a source can be provided by the author. Cfrydj 18:20, 2 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steel's law[edit]

Original research, trivia, unencyclopaedic and verifiability. The only two relevant Google hits are Wikipedia, and the rest are law firms. "Steel's law" Exposer doesn't get any Google hits at all. The 'critic' doesn't have an article, so can't be that notable. I've seen many versions of this in magazines such as Empire and Maxim, or e-mail forwards, so Wikipedia attributing it to one person is misleading. The word "law" in the name suggests greater authority than this light entertainment deserves; it's not encyclopaedic. It doesn't belong in the criticism cats (not in the academic understanding of film criticism anyway -- as opposed to simply the journalistic one), and certainly not 'critical theory'.
Also, not wishing to bite the newbies, creating this was the author's first edit: there have been allegations on the talk page of vanity. Which I think are legitimate. The JPStalk to me 09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in a movie theatre one day. --Dhartung | Talk 11:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamSmithee 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save - I removed the critical theory category and put in just film theory; that seemed to be a large part of the problem. I don't know how many times I must repeat myself, though, this is not original resource. If you were to pick up a copy of The Exposer the August 30 issue, you'd find an article on this. If you think that attributing this to one person is wrong, or calling it a "law" is wrong, then make the changes yourself rather than just taking the easy way out by deleting the article. I find this to be very similar to Godwin's Law, which was a mindset shared by many internet users but formulated into a pseudolaw by one person. I doubt it had much press when it was created in 1992, so if you just wait, Steel's law will also become a little more well-known.Jiberole 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is not film theory. It is light entertainment. Wikipedia does not include things which might become famous in the future. We include things which already are. It vey much seems that this article only exists to enhance the somewhat limited notability of whoever Steel is. I suspect he's a high school student in the San Franscisco area...? Oh, and I have made the changes needed: the article needs to be deleted, so I've nominated. As for Goodwin's Law, the chances are Goodwin's name was already attached to it by the time it was made a Wikipedia article. The magazine in which you say it will apparantly take of does not even seem to have a Wikipedia article. So you are asking us to include a non-notable person attempting to link their name to a piece of light entertainment, citing a non-notable magazine? And no-one else on the internet is talking about it. Repeat yourself as many times as you want: when Steel is indelibly associated with this and there are dozens of independent sources to verify it, then he can have his article. For the moment, this is going to the great encyclopedia in the sky. The JPStalk to me 19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, you're just so friendly to newcomers, aren't you? I don't know how a guy like you became admin...take a note from Esperanza and try being nice for once. Here's a link for you: Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers Jiberole 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I havn't been incivil, but I'm unprepared to let this article stay just to keep someone happy. Please assume good faith, and avoid making personal comments. The JPStalk to me 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're the one who accused me of vanity multiple times. That's a pretty personal comment, and I take offense to it. Jiberole 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced vanity-bait. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In working with this new editor, I also have tried to remain very conscious of WP:BITE, but I have thus far been unable to locate credible, third-party sources for this article. Unfortunately, does not meet the standards of WP:Verifiability. --Satori Son 02:47, 4 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 -- Longhair\talk 10:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 24 1992[edit]

It's just a single date, with a single sentence that could be put elsewhere. Steamrunner 09:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beverage (band)[edit]

A pig of a page about an unnotable band. Delete. TheMadBaron 09:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - also completely unreferenced. MER-C 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Dhartung | Talk 11:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very very close to a speedy case and clearly an article that will never have any credible sources. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 1 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 by Danny (advertisement. no need for AfD) - Yomanganitalk 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qbit Lossless Codec[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company's product, unverifiable claims, no independent references or sources. Mcoder 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Operation CWAL[edit]

Invalid sources - article cites sources as Blizzard.com and group's own website, non-verifiable. Scott 110 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 11:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Computer Limited[edit]

Contested prod which doesn't meet WP:CORP from the information given. MER-C 10:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byeard Maggott[edit]

Un-important article about an un-important person...does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Also no sources cited, except for a link to person's own company. Scott 110 10:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable, especially when the only assertion of notability is being in an organisation whose article is up for speedy deletion. MER-C 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I would say don't delete this page, he may not be overly known, but the Byeard Maggott does have a small cult following and deserves mention on wikipedia. At least, with the condition that the page be improved on or turned into a page about the Maggott Show with all characters in said show given a little fleshing out. -Fahad Siadat

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Britain Group[edit]

Non-notable organization. Per WP:CORP, organizations need to show at least two non-trivial instances of media coverage to establish notability, not counting self-published material, advertisements, press releases, etc. Google and some media searches didn't turn up anything of note other than Wikipedia & its mirrors, and the article itself lists only the TBG's own publications and two entries in the Daily Telegraph "Court and Social" page, which is apparently a page where people may purchase advertisementsof marriages, dinners, and other social events. (2) Nothing on the page is verified, as far as I can see, (3) the page reads like an advertisement for the group. (4) Finally, given the lack of verifiable sources about the group, I don't see any way to fix any of the above. TheronJ 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The google test is very telling. 1,000 people on your mailing list does not make notability, nor does having your dinners in the Daily Telegraph. I did a search for any other newspaper mentions and there was only an incidental mention in The Independent for having had Tony Martin as guest speaker at their 2003 dinner, and an inclusion in The Times court and social page. David | Talk 10:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. There's also something unpleasently POV about it. OBM | blah blah blah 11:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its connection to David Irving makes it worth keeping. There should be room for this in Wikipedia. Deletion is not the right way of fixing POV. Editing is. Ground Zero | t 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its connection to David Irving is so tenuous as to not even be mentioned in David Irving's article, and unless they hold their next dinner in the visiting room in that Austrian jail, I don't think he'll be coming. David | Talk 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have failed to address the nominator's point that there are no sources which can be used to neutralize the article. If you wish to demonstrate that this article can be neutralized, then please cite sources. Without them, you have no argument. Uncle G 11:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and lol at David's comment about Irving. Batmanand | Talk 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditional Delete as per nom and David Marcus22 22:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Taking into account that most keep votes were from anons for some reason, it was still asserted that he meets WP:BIO and this was not challenged. W.marsh 20:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Palmer[edit]

Prod removed. Subject is a chess player who once won a tournament, but has not competed at a high enough level to satisfy WP:Bio. Bringing to Afd to build consensus. Catchpole 10:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i believe he is notable, the article just needs more info as it is far from a complete list of his notable chess sucesses. 82.47.66.164 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems notable enough to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.2.124 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep all this article needs is a little more research. then it'll be fine. as you can see from this page, http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22ryan+palmer%22+chess&btnG=Search&meta= there are mentions of Ryan Palmer around many web pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.130.22 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep from WP:BIO, competitors who have played in a fully professional league Palmer might not be a current proffessional player( I don't know), but he has won a national championship. I would say that would qualify as "proffessional league," even if it isn't called as such. Mitaphane talk 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's the ex-chess champion of Jamacia for crying out loud! He is awesome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.68.246 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Look, ths is real. Mr. Palmer is real. Why would you want to delete him? Everything mentioned on his page is all true.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.68.246 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP! this man is a legend hes the best teacher i ever slept with! Love you ryan.xx Mrs Harris xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.217.143 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment "Palmer might not be a current proffessional player" - He was around the time of his national success. 82.47.66.164 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadisa Abebe[edit]

This athlete has never competed on a high level of his sport, failing the criteria for sportspeople in WP:BIO. Punkmorten 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability in it's current form. Tagged as such. MER-C 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that notability has been asserted (and the speedy withdrawn by me), I'd say keep as he appears to be professional enough to satisfy WP:BIO. MER-C 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the connection between those races and professionalism? They seem like random road races to me. Punkmorten 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Come back if he makes the Ethiopian team for the World Cross country or similar. - fchd 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current for as a failure of WP:BIO with the same consern as Punkmorten. There is no indication he won, set some record, or anything else besides ran in these races. While good for him, it ain't encyclopedicly notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those races are however quite notable in the Netherlands with international runners etc, specially the Postbankloop Velp and the Tilburg 10 Miles, which are also always covered on TV, teletext etc. Anyways, I have no obligations in him, so if the result is delete, then delete the article. SportsAddicted 06:58, 6 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 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chenva tieu[edit]

This is somebody's resume in French. It's not in English, and it's not worth translating. I skimmed it, as I know a good bit of French, and it's not worth translating and not appropriate even for French Wikipedia. It also fails Geogre's Law. Billy Blythe 11:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - he has the Ordre National du Mérite (lowest rank) which might make him notable, but WP:BIO doesn't say anything about awards, and the text is a straight lift from his blog so fails WP:RS, and it is not in English. Yomanganitalk 11:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; full of peacock terms, no real not worth translating. While it mentions that he recieved the Ordre du Mérite, it doesn't say what for. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Gaensler[edit]

An anon insists that this entry is autobiographical--I originally thought his afd was vandalism or a joke, but he persists (though doesn't seem to know how to complete the nomination process)...I disagree. The subject is notable, I see no reason this should be deleted. Speedy keep Etacar11 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More assumption of good faith is in order. Editors without accounts cannot complete an AFD nomination, because they cannot create the discussion page. The main AFD page does explain this. Uncle G 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realized that after I made this page. Sorry. But I do stand by my speedy keep. --Etacar11 12:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, subject seems notable altho doing your own page is gauche. --Dhartung | Talk 12:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced Gaensler did, myself...--Etacar11 12:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • first edit --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, as an astronomer myself who's done SNR research work, that doesn't convince me in the least.  :) But it's a moot point, since (in my view, anyway) if a person's notable, it doesn't matter who wrote the article, as long as the ARTICLE ITSELF is NPOV/encyclopedic/etc. --Etacar11 12:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Definitely some assertions of notability that would satisfy WP:BIO, but a serious dearth of sufficient sources. Hopefully will be expanded over time. --Satori Son 05:18, 1 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 as spam. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wippien[edit]

Spammy contested prod about software that fails to assert notability. MER-C 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete no reason was given for contesting the prod, no reason was given at AfD... I don't think this would survive if relisted. W.marsh 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRIZA-STARTER[edit]

Contested prod. Spammy, e.g. "In your hands is a new attempt to the first Edition" MER-C 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. As always, if anyone wants to transwiki to somewhere that wants this and has compatable liscensing, let me know. W.marsh 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Reality (Mod)[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to battlewiki.com if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 12:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mods are rarely notable enough for articles. Recury 14:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the mod does satisfy WP:SOFTWARE. It was featured in "Computer Games" magazine, as shown: [30]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.229.17 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Please read WP:SOFTWARE again, especially the part about "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". One ≠ multiple. Fan-1967 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The mod was also published in the March issue of Gamestar as well as being distributed on CD with the magazine. There are several other publications in the works. This clearly meets the requirements for notable software.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.229.17 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, "Publishing is the activity of putting information into the public arena". This is a quote from the wiki site. At no point in your reasons for deletion are websites excluded as published medias. Please remove the motion for deletion and return the article to its previous stature. Furthermore WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy and the mod is not commerical software. Hence, due to the numerous website references to Project Reality, and the unreasonable criterion you placed on the article your motion for deletion is false and unjust.86.137.79.79 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V. No multiple reliable sources = no article. Fyi, many mods have been deleted in the past. Wickethewok 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ExplainWhat are WP:RS, WP:V, please reference these conditions. Also can you note that this mod has featured in over 3 print publications and many more publications online. 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I wikilinked them above. You can just click on them now. WP:V <-- Wikipedia's verifiability policy; WP:RS <-- explanations regarding sources. Wickethewok 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's just nothing to say other than direct observation, and we're not here to publish first-hand observations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ok, has anyone really played this mod? If not, you have no grounds to talk about the verifiability of this mod, or its validity as an article. This is the most popular mod for Battlefield 2. It has 6000-some forum members and god knows how many dedicated players. I think this is big enough to become an article to become remembered. Also, those of you who have never made a mod for Battlefield 2 also have no grounds to decapitated this mod's image, as you do not know how many solid months it takes to take a mod to this level of success. So those of you who know nothing about this mod, or mods in general, please refrain from casting your opinion.65.49.206.5 00:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Griffon2-6[reply]
  • Keep - It is notable, has appeared in publications, is the most popular modification of the 3rd most popular online game, etc. Why delete? GeZe 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no case for deletion here: WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline and the article is sourced (although it could use some sourcing to other sites than the official homepage). Please stick to Wikipedia:deletion policy for reasons that are ground for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-rhetorical question - Why do we have so many keep votes despite a lack of multiple reliable sources? So far, all we have is 10 sentences in a single magazine. Wickethewok 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, V, NOTE etc. Daniel.Bryant 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE. --Draicone (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to delete. "Project Reality" gets 390k ghits, compared to 277k for ["Project Reality" battlefield "Project Reality" battlefield] (attempt to discern noise-vs-signal in search). Google news gets 5 hits for "Project Reality", but none of them appear to be related. At this time, I'm unable to confirm notability one way or the other, and in particular seems iffy on WP:SOFTWARE grounds. If it is notable, I'd like to keep it, but I'll need to be convinced that it is -- mentions by news sources, prominent in the field, or other websites, be they mass media outlets or major mod centers, I'd like some confirmation that a lot of people have taken notice of this. If somebody finds notability support, let us know pronto. Luna Santin 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has already been editied to mention two magazines that the mod has been in. It will be included in a third magazine in the very near future. There are probably other small stints in magazines that we don't know about. With the Gamestar magazine it was distributed on their CD, meaning that the release was sent to 300,000 people. Here is a review of the mod on TotalBF2, easily the largest BF2 news and fan site around. The mod has recieved 36k downloads on FilePlanet alone. Between the TotalBF2 downloads, torrent downloads, and other mod site downloads, the mod has easily grossed 100k downloads over its 4 major releases. The mod was also approached about doing a stint in "Soldier Magazine", the British Army's magazine. Surely this adds up to notability? This is not a small mod that no one has ever heard of and that never released anything, quite the opposite.--207.177.229.17 05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I swear to god all game map and game mod articles most go. Not all Mods can have their own articles.--M8v2 23:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another in the seemingly endless chain of game-mod articles lately. At least this one has references of sorts, but the references are the official website and a forum. Counter-Strike is encyclopedic, this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 7 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 06:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous tyrants[edit]

Was tagged for speedy with the reason "Impossible to maintain, can be covered by individual lists such as List of dictators". That is not a reason for speedy deletion. I am unsure whether redirecting or splitting are appropriate, so I list this here procedurally, with no vote yet. Kusma (討論) 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, apart from that not all tyrants are leaders this is also impossible to maintain as tyranny is subjective. What about Tsar Nicholas II aka Nicholas the Bloody? He was considered a tyrant by the Russian people but the massacre has so many conflicting stories it is impossible to know if he was responsible for the massacre, though eh was not even tat the Winter Palace at the time of the peoples protest, or if the people were responsible by provoking the police and actually the massacre wasn't as bad as they say but the facts greatly exaggerated to paint a picture of children being shot down while praying, or maybe the police were responsible and one accidently let go of a shot causing a chain reaction, or they overreacted, or they acted without thinking. There are many many other examples. –– Lid(Talk) 13:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at List of Ancient Greek tyrants for prior discussion on this. You're certainly correct that there are some disputes about whether some people are tyrants or not, but not always. Besides, even when they are, if the perspective is outside of Wikipedia (IOW, it's not a personal question of the authors POV), then it would be reasonable to put someone on a list, and if there is some debate, such as you mention about Nicholas II, put it on the individual's page. FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lid's well made point. "Tyrant" is matter of perception and not an actual rank or title. PJM 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lid. Tyrant is by its nature a POV word and the arguments over who or what constitutes a tyrant are never-ending. Add in that it is just another list then there is no real reason to hang onto this. Keresaspa 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV list, made redundant by List of dictators. -- IslaySolomon 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but do something as I think that with the right criteria, the page could be appropriate, but it would be helpful to sort the list (such as the already mentioned Ancient Greek Tyrans), but I'm not sure of what ones to go with. Maybe make a category? I dunno. Still, we shouldn't let ourself get so caught up in being NPOV that we can't even say "these are some people thought of as tyrants" FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unavoidably POV. Gazpacho 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, POV.--Húsönd 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, WP:TINC. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efl messageboard[edit]

Non notable internet forum that fails WP:WEB. We really need a speedy criteria for some webpages. –– Lid(Talk) 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to EFL messageboard. –– Lid(Talk) 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. By the way, there will be such a CSD by the weekend if no objections are raised, see WT:CSD. MER-C 12:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in accordance to motivation above. Nehwyn 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin for EFLUKHC I am pleased that we managed to stay up for a brief moment of glory. FYI the board is a central focus of a relatively large music scene within the UK and has a name related to an infamous incident. Oh well I guess there's no competeing with the cyber gestapo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleakiman (talk • contribs)

  • Comment, for a gestapo we sure aren't secret. Also if you can provide evidence or clarify your statements better it can be kept. –– Lid(Talk) 03:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GotGames[edit]

Unsourced, probable vanity, fails WP:WEB –– Lid(Talk) 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yet another in the endless stream of non-notable web forums. No assertion of significance. Fails WP:WEB. -- IslaySolomon 13:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen Windows Corporation[edit]

The entire article is a PR/advertising piece, that serves no useful purpose. Nick San 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite Notable within its industry, satisfies WP:CORP w/1200+ hits at findarticles. Tag it with advert, though.ObtuseAngle 20:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Important manufacturer. Fg2 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. A major manufacturer of windows, along with Pella, though these articles are pane-ful to read and need much cleanup. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after my rewrite and move to Anderson Windows. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Dhartung. Anderson Windows is one of the most notable brands within their industry. Agne 11:04, 5 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. W.marsh 16:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOAS Students' Union[edit]

A7 tag removed by possible single purpose account. Non-notable university union group. –– Lid(Talk) 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just because a university has a student union, it does not make it notable. Wildthing61476 13:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because it is the most left wing radical students' union. And SOAS is very notable. The only reason LSE, UCL, KCL, Oxford, and Cambridge SU's are notable is because they are. same with SOAS SU. ExULstudent 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)— ExULstudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Many colleges and universities have student unions: they are not inherently notable. This particular union has garnered no press attention and returns a google search without quotations with approximately 35,000 results, many of which are irrelevant. Srose (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first attempt at creating an article. So saying I'm just interested in setting this up is shocking. It is just a battle to get this page recognised that is taking time, as I fear all my work will be wasted. ExULstudent 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=UCLU&btnG=Search+News UCLU hasn't got any news, and it has a page.ExULstudent 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From the UCLU article: "University College London Union, founded in 1893, has a credible claim to be England's oldest students' union." I think that right there establishes a good deal of notority. As it stands right now, this article shows no notability, and only a statement that the Union has been at odds with the administration. Wildthing61476 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it changes radically. This is a mixture of triviality and vanity. Guy 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4323575.stm no news! ExULstudent 14:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.225.189 (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • Comment. Please indent your comments with an asterick. To address your comment: That article is almost entirely about the mayor; it has very little to do with the student union. While the aforementioned student unions have not been in the news recently, they have a substantial claim to notability (see the evidence given by Wildthing). Srose (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is true that it has little to do with the students' union. The point is that the students' union must be a notable organisation for the BBC to be interested in what it has to say on the matter of the Mayor of London. SOAS Students' Union is also notable because it is the most radically left wing students' Union in the UK. It is know throughout the students' movement in that way. So if you have any students' unions on wiki then you should take note of ones who have left NUS (imperial) the oldest ones (KCL and UCL). In the students' union movement it is known because of this.ExULstudent 7:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If chichester, coventry, keele, kent, northumbria, Thames Vallye, UEA and Queen Mary's students' unions are notable then surely SOAS Students' Union must be due to its media coverage and its politics. ExULstudent 8:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Either keep, as student union of notable school, merge to the school, or userfy to the creator's userspace, and give ExULstudent a chance to work on it for a while. In either case, please keep current officers of student organisations out of Wikipedia. Even when an organisation is old and notable and has had later-prominent office-holders in the past, the current officers have absolutely no interest to the world at large and the information will be dated in a few months. (I deleted that section now, please don't restore it.) up+land 09:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If SOAS Students' Union is merged with SOAS, then the same needs to happen for all students' union. When considering this article people need to read what is said about other students' unions in the English Students' UnionsCategory: English students' unions. Then a policy needs to be established on Students' Unions. ExULstudent 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SOAS student union has no particular notability. Being somewhat radical/considered full of hippies isn't especially notable. MLA 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being a radical students' union is notable because in the history of students' unions they all used to be far more left wing, as is mentioned on their wiki pages. SOAS has been the only one that is still radical that is why it is notable.ExULstudent 11:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid I really cannot take a stand one way or the other. I have just arrived at SOAS, and while I get the impression that they are the most left-wing student body in the UK, that does not unfortunately make them quite notable enough. I say merge most of this info into the main SOAS article, or add discussion of individual particular events in which the SOAS Union did something notable to the whole city, country or world. Have they led marches that made the news? Have they in any way truly affected policy? I honestly don't know... LordAmeth 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If that is the requirement for notability then all students' unions must be merged into the university in which they come from. You can not simply do this for just one, with a different rule for the others. ExULstudent 11:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's just a club under WP:ORG, though that's only a proposed guideline. This student union has had some national media coverage for racial hatred, like [31] in 2005, although I don't see any positive achievements. Ordinary squabbling with authorities in a university doesn't count as encyclopedic. Mereda 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you think that "ordinary squabbling with authorities in a university doesn't count as encyclopedic", why are you !voting "keep"? I'm afraid I don't understand your rationale. Srose (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIn the english students' union section includesCity and Guilds College Union. This students' union is just really part of Imperial College Union. Why is this notable and SOAS Students' Union not? University of Plymouth Students' Union just says it is a students' union nothing notable. Yet it has a page. MMUnion also just states it is a students' union, nothing notable. Yet it has a page. SOAS Students' Union has a long contoversial history. Things are include on Wiki that are controversial.ExULstudent 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn club. Vegaswikian 03:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be inconsistent to delete this article while keeping many others on students' unions. SOAS SU has one of the highest profiles and repeatedly features in discussion of and allegations about anti-semitism at the institution. Timrollpickering 13:19, 1 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, sock or no sock. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Naruto I[edit]

WP is not a place for plot summaries. Pentasyllabic 14:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read more carefully: plot summaries are acceptable if they are part of a larger article or series of articles. This qualifies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plunge (talk • contribs).
  • Also AfD Plot of Naruto II. --Pentasyllabic 14:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim the end of Naruto II mainly because the end of that article is usually a complete in depth summary of an intire chapture including a deep analysis. Dangerdog
  • Keep atleast everything and continue updating the plot, it's important to understand what's going on and is basically the name the plot, everyone is just explaining the plot, keep the articles. if erased, it should be considered censorship.... MetalBladeX4 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, excessive amount of information, especially the latter. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. This is a tricky issue. Prior to September 3, WP:NOT said that plot summaries were appropriate "as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series". That phrase appears to have been deleted inadvertently during a series of edits and reversions, and I have added it back in. (See here). The upshot is that IMHO, both of the plot arc articles should be shortened as a style issue, but aren't properly a subject for deletion, as the overall plot allows readers to put the other articles in the Naruto series in context. (Although I agree that the articles are too long, that is a {{sofixit}} issue, not a reason for deletion). TheronJ 14:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TheronJ. Payneos 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Shorten per TheronJ. The information is useful in and of itself, especially those who might be curious enough to look up Naruto to find out what it is about. CaveatLectorTalk 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this... rename to history of the Naruto world (or whatever the world is called), shorten it a bit, and reword to account for this slight shift in focus. >Radiant< 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is nothing wrong with this part, it helps to get details we miss when reading.
  • Keep per TheronJ's statements. These articles are necesary in understanding the Naruto universe, but in need of shortening. *Detailed* plot summaries are overkill, but merging the articles in a single Plot of Naruto article and cutting them down to a shorter summary would work better and fit Wiki's guidelines. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. Both articles definitely need to be trimmed down in size, but these are no different from the episode synopses for television shows on Wiki, among other things. Djseifer 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles, the plot summaries to many other shows, anime and not, are far greater than the Naruto articles put together. As was said above, plot summaries are allowed, and many people who can't read the manga or watch the anime can use these pages to catch up. We already limit speculative theories about characters and plots, and that should be enough. However if a merger is done and we must shorten the articles then it would be in everybody's best interest to eliminate trivia sections and the filler material, in fact the entire filler page could be done away with before any changes are made to these articles, as it does not harm the plot too much.67.85.70.232 18:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC) A fan of Naruto looking out for other fans' interests.[reply]
    • Comment If/when we do merge the article, we have to note the events of the anime filler. It is not Wikipedia's place to determine what is and is not canon. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, my guess was way off. I figured at least a few more people would vote delete. Oh well. I'd be fine so long as these were shortened and all inclusive. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the plot, its still information there people would like to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.254.139.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. This seems to have touched a nerve with the Naruto fanboys. The rules say wikipedia is not for plot summaries, and this is clearly a plot summary, as indicated by the title. AmitDeshwar 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split by arc. This page is much too large and already omits quite a bit of information (eg: the other fights during the Chunin Exam arc), and filler arcs are ignored altogether. This will leave a lot of small articles, but it will be a lot better than the massive, cramped page we have now. Fillers can be grouped by season (of course, keeping together arcs that have the season break between episodes). This is by no means worth deleting. You Can't See Me! 00:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is used a lot by fans in the US to see what is happening in the Japanese version. This is also one of the best articles on all of Wikipedia. To delete it would be an insanity & a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.111.32 (talk • contribs) .
  • Definitely keep! This is an insanely useful resource. Why regulate Wikipedia in such a manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.182.52 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, this is the best article that I've found on wikipedia. Why delete it??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.66.22.232 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, I agree don't delete it its an excellent page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.155.72.202 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment, why am I not surprised IPs suddenly jump all over this? At least bother to follow the format when commenting. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!, it says its spoiler info why get rid of it? dont want it dont read it:P i check here everyday for updates from the manga lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.115.29 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep I aslo enjoy reading about the manga, because the American Version is so far behind— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.139.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep but make it shorter. master2841(User | Talk)
  • Keep Just shorten it a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.73.106 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep or Merge as complete history— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.52.48 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or Merge that sounds like a good idea, don't shorten its really detailled and that is good— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.139.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Please don't delete this page goodness. I really enjoy reading it.
  • Keep both articles. I agree with TheronJ & CaveatLector. The article could be shortened, although frankly I enjoy it as it is, an invaluable resource for those attempting to gain an understanding of the core story behind the universe known as Naruto. If Wikipedia user consensus is otherwise, then I can understand deletion Jh12 15:35, 2 October 2006
  • Keep and do not merge! The history of Naruto would be much better if divided like this. See, the entries for Naruto ninjutsu, genjutsu, and taijutsu were once in one article but were divided... also, I agree with what TheronJ and CaveatLector. Kureiha x 8:23, 3 October 2006

(UTC)

  • Keep and do not merge! I dont have a user account but this is the way i keep up because of my busy schedule.

This has helped me become the current leader of the show trivia and information. Recoomended to all my friends. The different Entrys, If subsidized together would seriously affect finding the infomation in a timely manner.

  • comment if wikipedia isn't supposed to have plot summaries, why doesn't it start a new sister project where plot summaries would be aloud, or thats all its about
  • I insist that this page must remain. Some naruto fans such as myself are deprived of any opportunities of downloading any new episodes of naruto, and are obliged to follow them through the summaries. Please respect that...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.83.52.48 (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. W.marsh 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon EVIL[edit]

Spam. And that, I think, sums it up. Guy 14:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kawazanga Pirates[edit]

Cannot find them at imdb; do we have criteria for youtube videos? (btw, also the link to youtube tells me " User KawazangaPirates/ not found!") -- Aleph-4 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Moved to Republic of Vojvodina during AFD. The AFD has been closed as the article no longer exists and the redirect is up for deletion at WP:RFD Yomanganitalk 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Republic of Vojvodina[edit]

The article is entirely hypothetical. About 5-6% of Vojvodina's population support independence from Serbia, and this merely warrants a mention in the Vojvodina article. This page has been created by a clearly biased user - he has an anti-Treaty of Trianon userbox on his userpage - and is utterly without merit. estavisti 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Every sentence in the article is either a crystal ball, POV, or unreferenced. Following a Lexis search, there is enough material out there to write a section on the prospects of a referendum in Vojvodina to reject the new Serbian constitution, which would go in the main article of Vojvodina. Pan Dan 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*'Keep'.This question exists in Vojvodina. I have citations(external links) about it. I'll wrote them down. Sorry I want to wrote 5-6%, I will correct it. Everyone can correct the article if anyone thinks that I wasn't objective enough. But I think the article should't be deleted maybe repaired.

Citiation for the article ask a Hungarian wikipedian about it.He can prove that it's trueIn Hungarian

HunTheGoaT 17:25, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

  • Comment - The issue is dealt with in Politics of Vojvodina. No-one is denying that a tiny minority in Vojvodina would like it to be independent, the problem here is that the article is entirely based on conjecture. --estavisti 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you read Politics of Vojvodina you will see that there is no single political party that support independent Vojvodina. In another words, this article is only original research of its creator (or his own political idea), but it is not idea presented or supported by any relevant political factors in Vojvodina itself or anywhere else. PANONIAN (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I change my voice to Keep since the name of the article is changed to the Republic of Vojvodina, which is a political concept of the League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina and the current article content could be easily verified on the Leagua web site: http://www.lsv.org.yu/?menu=6&smenu=1 However, there is no place for word "independent" here, since the League site itself claim that this political solution would "stabilize Serbia as a state and would prevent any separatist tendencies on the territory of Serbia". So much about "independence" and "verifiability". PANONIAN (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nenad Čanak was thinking about this. It can be read in the External Link, but unfortunatly it is in Hungarian. I have writen that no party supports the idea officaly. But there were parties which used to support the independece.

I've found some more links in English, just for you all: [32] [33] [34]

What I see in your link is that Vuk Drašković (who is an centralist) accused Vojvodinian autonomists that they supoort independence. It is well known that pro-centralist politicians accuse autonomist politicians for separatism simply to derogate their popularity. But did you ever heard any autonomist politician including Nenad Čanak to support independence? I certainly did not heard. The web site of the LSV political party (led by Nenad Čanak) claim that autonomous republic of Vojvodina that they propagate would make Serbia stronger. So, yes, there are people who support "Republic of Vojvodina", but certainly not "Independent Republic of Vojvodina". The only possible way to have this article verified (the verification policy of Wikipedia - remember), is to rename it to "Republic of Vojvodina" and then it will present political program of LSV party about federalized Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if expanded, otherwise merge into Vojvodina. In my opinion, the question is not how much support it has but whether one can write a long enough article about it as a proposed formation with references. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, of course, but it's not about the future but about a presently existing idea. Just look at the National liberation movements and the Secessionist organizations caterories: they contain hundreds of articles. The proposed states may be hypothetical but the ideas are real (and, after all, everything that exists on Earth was created from plans). Beyond doubt, it is a viable topic in Wikipedia as in any other encyclopedia. Adam78 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It have nothing with "liberation movements". It is only dream of few local Hungarian and Croatian irredentists who still dream Greater Hungary and Greater Croatia. These irredentists are not even accepted among their own ethnic communities. József Kasza for example did not had very good opinion about "64 counties movement", and even they do not support independent Vojvodina openly. And the second problem is that idea is simply not openly or publicly supported by anybody relevant, instead by few local drunkards in the cafe. Should we create a Wikipedia article about every idea of every street drunkard? PANONIAN (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just to say that this article not only totally lack verification, but its title is the same if we writte article "Independent Republic of Belgrade" or even "Independent Republic of Arilje" ( small town in Serbia). PANONIAN (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Panonian, I'm afraid you're lost on this page. We are voting about a page called "Independent Republic of Vojvodina". How do you think a (proposed) independent state could be related to the Greater Hungary or the Greater Croatia concept? These latter deal with incorporating areas (making them dependent), rather than creating independent states. It would be useful to realize what other people talk about before you voice your opinion... Adam78 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer is very simple: we can take User:HunTheGoaT as a very good example of this what I speak. Since he created this article, we can assume that he support independent Vojvodina, but does he support it? If you see his user page you will notice that he has "No Trianon" tag there and now tell me how one can be for independent Vojvodina and against the Treaty of Trianon in the same time? It is simply impossible. The Treaty of Trianon was a condition that Vojvodina today exist at all, so if there is no Trianon, then there is no Vojvodina, there is no Croatia, there is no Slovakia, etc, and instead of them, there is only one thing - a Greater Hungary. So, if somebody is against Trianon that means that he is also against Vojvodina (dependent or independent no matter), and if such person tell that he support independent Vojvodina, the only way how it can be explained is that such person want to implement "divide and conquer" policy - to divide Serbs and to make Vojvodina easier target for Hungary than it is now. Just think why Albanians in Montenegro voted for Montenegrin independence...same performance, another actors... PANONIAN (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Vojvodina and against the Treaty of Trianon in the same time is not impossible. I don't wan to restore of the Greater-Hungary! I say that the Treaty is not good. If Vojvodina will an independent state, this will change the borders of Trianon because Vojvodina has been given to Serbia and if it weren't Serbia anymore it meant the fall of the Trianon border.

The secont thing is that I didn't write about my idea, I've writen about a future question after Kosovo will independent. Because KOSOVO WILL INDEPENDENT, AND KOSOVO IS ALREADY INDEPENDENT! HunTheGoaT 07:47, 29 September 2006 (CEST)

But independent Vojvodina will not change Trianon border. If Vojvodina became independent border with Hungary still will be the same and the Trianon still will be valid. The point of Trianon was that Serbs and other Slavs of Vojvodina (who were majority in Vojvodina) live in their own Slavic state instead under Hungarian rule. The question whether name of this Slavic state is Yugoslavia, Serbia or Vojvodina is simply irrelevant - it is still Slavic state. So, you see, independent Vojvodina would be only a confirmation of the Trianon. And by the way, Vojvodina was not "given" to Serbia by the Trianon - it is Slavic citizens of Vojvodina that voted for it and Trianon recognized their right to self determination. Independent Vojvodina would be only another form of that right (if it is achieved by their own will), and it would retain everything what Trianon was. Regarding Kosovo, Kosovo is lost for Serbia (time will show whether it is bad or good), but that fact means that the relevant political factors in the World will give a compensation to Serbia. And do you know what that compensation is? The compensation is that they will not push Serbia further about its minorities and that Serbia will not lost any part of its current territory - in another words (this is a joke), but if all Serbs in Serbia become canibals and start to kill and eat its ethnic minorities, the World will not care (that is a compensation for Kosovo, my friend, so think about it). :) PANONIAN (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, in the time when the Treaty of Trianon was signed (in 1920), Serbia did not existed as a state, but the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. So, by your own logic, the fact that Vojvodina is not part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes but part of Serbia would mean that Trianon borders are already changed, right? PANONIAN (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must stop our discussion about it. You know that Serbia is the succesor state of the SHS Kingdom. This is just philosophy. Why do you think that I am a supporter of this separatist idea. I just don't know why is Senta, Ada, Kanjiza and the other settlements with around 80% majority in Serbia. We can't speak Serbian enough good because here the 90% speaks Hungarian nearly perfect. Just those who came from Bosnia and Croatia can't stand Hungarians. I want just a better life for Hungarians. I think that the Trianon Treaty is bad, but to totaly restore the Greater-Hungary is also not good. I think there should be changes in borders in an other way. The propbleme is that neither Hungary neither Serbia don't care about us. But now we should end our talk. Bye! Watch out for my articles!HunTheGoaT 16:57, 29 September 2006 (CEST)
  • MoveOK than move it to the Republic of Vojvodina article. Ok?

HunTheGoaT 19:40, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

I would agree to move it to "Republic of Vojvodina" and then to completelly rewrite it to present the political program of the LSV party. PANONIAN (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry:D. This last version of the IRV was just a joke :D! Then move your version to the Republic f Vojvodina. HunTheGoaT 19:53, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

No, your version was a joke and my was a proper text for "Independent Republic of Vojvodina" title. Since I moved article now to "Republic of Vojvodina", it should be written in accordance with political program of LSV party and nothing beyond that. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my last message, I had told that my version was the joke. :D I was joking? Hello? Can you understand it? You realy don't understand jokes.:( HunTheGoaT 20:17, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Strong delete we cannot allow Wikipedia to become stronghold of separatists. Delete this immediately, move or rename, it cannot remain as it is, article is based on lies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.180.200 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jimbo deleted the article out of human dignity and it is covered in the controversy article, so I have speedy closed the nomination. I moved the drummer article to Brian Chase. I do not think that the controversial Brian Chase even needs a mention at the top of the article, but if someone wants to put it in, fine. If you want Brian Chase to be a redirect to the controversy article and there to be a link at the top to Brian Chase (drummer), you can do a requested move. -- Kjkolb 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chase[edit]

Outside the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, the subject of this article isn't very notable. The material about the subject and references cited in this article already exist in the Seigenthaler article. What isn't already there could be merged. I suggest that this article be deleted and replaced with a redirect. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAlso please note this: [35]. Jimbo decided to redirect and protect that entry. The same should be done in this case. This conflicts with a potentially notable drummer at Brian Chase (drummer), so it is important for something to be done here. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those voting revert: what do you propose we do when people wikilink the name "Brian Chase" in the Seigenthaler article? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert it. And put in HTML comments everywhere by his name saying "Do not wikilink". —Chowbok 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so anytime anyone googles Brian Chase looking for information about the Seigenthaler affair will find information about the drummer. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They'll find the article about the drummer, the first two lines of which are "This article is about the drummer for the rock band Yeah Yeah Yeahs. For the former Wikipedia editor, see John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy." —Chowbok 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The only notable thing about this guy is his involvement in the Seigenthaler affair. No chance for expansion. Pan Dan 15:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and keep I knew something was up when I saw this name- Brian Chase (drummer) beats skins for one of my favorite bands, Yeah Yeah Yeahs. A while back, this was a disambiguation page consisting of that Brian Chase and the one in question; it previously just contained a two-sentence summary of the WP-related Chase and linked to the Seigenthaler controversy page. I see no reason why this cannot and should not be reverted to the dab page it had formerly been. -- Kicking222 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Brian Chase (drummer) to Brian Chase and link near the top to Seigenthaler controversy, per Talk:Brian_Chase#Not a disambig. Don't revert to this version of Brian Chase as it may be a non-GFDL-compliant copy of Brian Chase (drummer). Pan Dan 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Outside of the things he's notable for, he's not notable? So what. Let's merge John Wilkes Booth to Abraham Lincoln, Gwen Stefani to No Doubt, and Bill O'Reilly to Feces. VivianDarkbloom 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, you're equating a wikipedia vandal to a presidential assasin? Gwen Stefani is a solo artist, but if she wasn't I'd say okay. And Bill O'Reilly...well you're okay on that one. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move merge or delete - at any rate rid us of this bio. He's only notable within the controversy. Comparing him to Lincoln's assassin is just really stupid. --Doc 21:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move merge or delete Not enough to justify a stand-alone article. --Calton | Talk 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fuck this, why are we arguing over the deletion of an article which has been vandalised? Why have we now farmed the original Brian Chase article off to another one without even a dab link? Close this, and revert back to the original article. Absolutely trivial guy, of no consequence and already covered in the main article. Note that if you check Talk:Brian Chase and the Seigenthaler incident archives, this is exactly what I thought when it first happened. Let's not do the cycle again. This is the Wikitruth. - Hahnchen 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and change back to disambig Not enough notability for own article Bwithh 02:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to article about drummer. As I said above, this shouldn't even be an AFD. An anon vandal changed article to be about a different person, and rather than simply reverting it was submitted for deletion. We had a solution to this for months which nobody objected to. And if it's deleted now, we'll lose the history of the drummer article. —Chowbok 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Chowbok. Other article will need redirection. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Chowbok, perfectly reasonable idea. Guy 10:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Coates[edit]

Tagged A7 nut notability asserted. If AfD does decide that notability is established then I will be quite interested as an old schoolfriend of mine did the lighintg for Blood Brothers and regularly tours with people like Barbara Dickson. Guy 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion I really don't think that this article stands to be deleted. Norman Coates is a legitimate entry to wikipedia. Granted, Norman's entry is not as full or info filled as i think it could be but i don't think that that alone merits deletion. Mr. Coates is a respected lighting designer that has lit broadway shows. Along with numerous tours and regional shows that i know are not listed here. If Norman's article is to be deleted then shouldnt the other lighting designers listed on wikipedia? If anyone has a problem with the addition please let me know. And if the amount of data is an issue, i will fill in the data. Airbornecasualty 01:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to have the impression that because one person has an entry on Wikipedia, everybody else in that profession should have an entry. This is not necessarily true. The main criteria for inclusion of people in Wikipedia is that they should be the subject of multiple independent third-party information sources. Maybe someone has written about him in newspapers or magazines? (The whole category is in need of a lot of attention, it seems) ColourBurst 02:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have since compiled much data about Coates' work, and looking at all that i have compiled i feel that he does merit his page. He has made an impact in the North American theatre community. He has also influenced many learning designers in his work at The North Carolina School of the Arts. I plan to compile the information (and the sources that mention him) soon. Airbornecasualty 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Notability must be established. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO in current state...and doesn't seem to be getting better. ju66l3r 13:57, 2 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. W.marsh 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous_Disposition[edit]

No information on page apart from track listing, Album artist has no Wikipedia page Mr. Scare 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No article for the Welsh band. NN band => NN album.--Húsönd 21:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bohemian Cafe[edit]

Non-notable restaurant, appears to be little more than an advertisement Wildthing61476 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so, an ethical and noteworthy fair trade establishement....a much needed boost in a low area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applecake (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, should I create an article about the vegan/vegetarian restaurant that opened in a rather nasty part of Baltimore City for the same reason? It's great that the restaurant is giving a boost to the area, however, it does need to meet WP:CORP, which it does not. Wildthing61476 14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising/Vanity page for totally non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Applecake please read WP:NOTE and WP:CORP as well as WP:NOT. -- IslaySolomon 15:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article about the Restaurants of Baltimore, if there is one. People Powered 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually it's in Sheffield, but I don't see a case for listing every restaurant in a particular locale. Wikipedia is not: a directory, a travel guide, an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an encyclopaedia article. It's an advertisement. The biggest clue is that four fifths of the article is devoted to listing the menu served by this restaurant, including the individual prices for many items. It's written in the first person, and the author's intention of writing the article, apparent from xyr edits to the external links section of Sheffield, is to give the restaurant itself a "boost". Wikipedia is neither a business directory nor an advertising billboard. Whether or not an encyclopaedia article can be written on this subject (and a quick search indicates that the WP:CORP criteria probably cannot be satisfied), this content must go. Delete. Uncle G 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok menu deleted. Better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applecake (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because there are still the WP:CORP criteria to satisfy. I've just had a more thorough look, and I couldn't find any non-trivial works published about this restaurant by people that are independent of it. If some exist, please cite them. Uncle G 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wouldnt be, it has just opened. I cant really defend too much as I am a customer and love this please - it is unique to sheffield. but what else can i say!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.252.151 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-28 18:06:35
    • Comment By your statement however, you make a strong case for deletion, as it is a newly opened restaurant with no claim of notability. It may be a good restuarant, but there are thousands, if not MILLIONS of those around the world. Wildthing61476 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're more than just a customer, M. Applegate. You're the designer and maintainer of the restaurant's web site. If you want to create free content business directory articles for businesses in Sheffield, the place you should be is Yellowikis, which unlike Wikipedia is a business directory. Uncle G 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable local restaurant. NawlinWiki 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia documents the already-established, it doesn't establish the as-yet undocumented. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 07:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Dr. Ali Maher ElAdl[edit]

Notability of subject not established Dunstan talk 14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Resume. Most notable assertion is that he was VP of Mansoura University, which is probably not enough for inclusion in WP. No hits on Google other than this article. Pan Dan 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a few non-wiki Google hits for a geneticist AM El Adl or AM El-Adl, though the journals he's published in don't seem to be high profile. Espresso Addict 04:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Art Collective[edit]

Art group that is apparently non-notable outside of its local context. No sources provided to substantiate claims that the group is "making impact around the San Francisco Bay Area" and "has started to find traction through its internet community". Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I live in the metropolitan area in question, and this article is the first I've ever heard of PAC. While this alone doesn't mean it's not notable, the article fails to provide a reference establishing its notability. The article also violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball by making unverifiable predictions of the future, and just feels like a marketing campaign. Gentgeen 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Agamemnon (Star Trek)[edit]

Delete A fictional starship that appeared solely in two lines of dialogue in a single episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

  • NECHAYEV: There will be fifteen starships in this sector by the day after tomorrow. The Gorkon will be my flagship. You'll have command of task force three, consisting of the Enterprise, the Crazy Horse and the Agamemnon.

...and...

  • PICARD (to Worf): Contact the Crazy Horse, and the Agamemnon, tell them to stand-by in case we --

Never once actually appeared on screen. AlistairMcMillan 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as much as I like the show, this is Trekcruft. Memory Alpha is thataway... --Kinu t/c 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's an article on it at Memory Alpha, no need for one here. --Roninbk t c # 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete An entire article created on the basis of a single word utterred twice in the course of one of one of the longest running television series in history. So fancrufty it hurts. -- IslaySolomon 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but leave the information on the Agamemnon disambig page. FrozenPurpleCube 17:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, it's bad practice to leave entries on disambiguation pages that don't point to articles. --Roninbk t c # 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point it to something Star Trek related then, like the episode it was mentioned in. FrozenPurpleCube 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - add a mention to the list page, and then cleanup the redlinks for all ships that did not actiually play an active part in any storyline. Ace of Risk 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want Memory Alpha, you know where to find it. Alba 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and feel pity for who would ever bother to care enough to look it up anywhere, nevermind actually write an article. SchmuckyTheCat 20:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD G4. Article is insufficiently different from the previously deleted version. GarrettTalk 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PGNx Media[edit]

Checking around, this article was already deleted once. I'd like feedback from the community about whether or not the page is any better now. I should point out that the main author, User:Thinkjose, is the site owner. For reference, the first AfD debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PGNx_Media. --Alan Au 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC) --Alan Au 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hmm, up to 142 unique Ghits outside of domain, that's an improvement.... Blatant POV issues, reads WAY too much like an advertisement. Site's biggest claim to fame is being a contributor to other websites. --Roninbk t c # 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete clearly self-promotion. Fails WP:WEB. — brighterorange (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Main claim for notability, "source of syndicated reviews" is original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.149.171.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - Blantant self-promotion and POV issues. The Kinslayer 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Lundy[edit]

Is with the present content not notable Inge 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useful information in this article is minimal to non-existent. If the author must share this information with the world, merge it as a paragraph into the Lundy article as trivia, but it's definitely not worthy enough to have a whole article dedicaed to it. Tx17777 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete for lack of actual content LHOON 14:09, 6 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, consensus seems to be to cover this at Mac Dre if anywhere (it already seems to be mentioned there anyway). W.marsh 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thizz[edit]

This article was previously speedy deleted during its first AfD. However, A DRV consensus concluded that the speedied version was a vandalistic edit, rendering the speedy improper (check histories before speedying or AfDing, folks!) The article has been restored to an unvandalized version for relisting. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless some source other than a podcast can be provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are other sources used on the page just not cited I believe, such as East Bay Express articles. Skhatri2005 17:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is East Bay Express and what makes it reliable, and why isn't it in the article? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Mac Dre, where this is already mentioned. The song lyrics, for example, are very likely copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mac Dre or hyphy. Either would do. The topic merits coverage as a notable aspect of the hyphy movement, but is not worthy of its own article. GassyGuy 04:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to methylenedioxymethamphetamine (thizz = ecstasy). —Khoikhoi 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this it is the truth and should not be considered for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.251.142 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete and redirect to MDMA, per khoikhoi. --Storkk 12:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete everything in subsection Thizz#Thizzle_Dance, after and including 'which includes the instructions' because its not directly related, and reorganize the bottom half to match the top's organization.Zaphraud 06:24, 5 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 transwikid. W.marsh 20:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Bog[edit]

Tagged for speedy but not a valid speedy candidate. Wikipedia is not a recipe book, and that which is not a recipe is of questionable value, being largely a verbatim quote from a single 1968 magazine article. Guy 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but Wiki recipe would be an excellent idea. Does it already exist? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep but remove recipes Wikipedia is not a recipe book. We have articles on Jambalaya, Gumbo, Poutine, etc. Assuming that Chicken Bog is truly a regional dish, it could arguably deserve its own article (what are the criteria for notability of food dishes?). --Richard 16:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I agree that some dishes such as Gumbo and Chicken soup are inherently notable, I see nothing which indicates that "Chicken Bog" is sufficiently well-known to deserve its own article. This item might be worth mentioning in some other article such as the one on the Pee Dee area or something else with a list of miscellaneous Chicken recipes, but that's about it. --Elonka 17:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Rees Associates[edit]

does not assrt any notability according to WP:CORP. - CobaltBlueTony 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam, speedied the one-liners on the principals created by the same user. Any article that starts with "headed up by" should be nuked on sight. Guy 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the six google hits, not in the same galaxy with WP:CORP. Fan-1967 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam. MER-C 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiServer[edit]

Article with relatively little history, advertorial in tone, asserts that it is genericised but offers no evidence (and indeed has no secondary sources). 200 unique Googles excluding mirrors -wikipedia&start=200. Has been around for a while but I see no real evidence of significance per WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 11:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True I was surprised to see an article on my program here :). Now I finally get to feel what its like to be nominated for deletion :). The earlier program by Eddie Edwards has a bit history in the C2 wiki and such for being the first real wiki built on an actual server... different times then though.......... RN 11:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sourceforge project. W not a directory of sourceforge projects. See GIMP, a noteable project. User:Yy-bo 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Not clear about the 'has no secondary sources'; of those 200 unique google hits, at least 54 are mentionning it in the context of actual use. Within the niche of wikiservers (self-containing wiki-engines) it is the most known example. Furthermore, it was the first wiki of this concept to ever be built; that alone makes it already notable enough to be mentionned. I agree that the article could be improved, but this could be remedied by declaring it a stub, which can be made better (adding a more elaborate history and making it less advertorial in tone, for instance).

If one stays consistent, and being the first and oldest of a subgenre of wikisystems, and having 200 unique hits, is not enough, then roughly 40% of all wiki-systems mentionned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software should *certainly* be deleted too, since they have even far less to show for. Both actions; offering this article for deletion while leaving the others stand, as well as deleting all those wikisystems, would seem rather unreasonable. In my book, being the first of a genre (or subgenre) makes something already noteworthy.

Yeah, here is another one [36]. Anyway, I am staying out of this one - too involved RN 21:51, 11 September 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, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. --Drahcirmy talk 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes no sense. The nominator supplied a reason to delete it, not to keep it. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He probably meant RN...or he thought the arguments given by the nominator could be seen as sufficient for keeping it, even though the nominator voted to delete.
  • Delete per nom. No sign of significant independent reporting and low ghit count is relevant for software. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First of a subgenre; genericised term of wikiserver (more then 23.000 hits for the genericised name; no mention of the term before 1997), review in the dutch IT-magazine 'netwerk': all this makes it elligible to be on wikipedia, according to WP:SOFTWARE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.228.203 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom--Peta 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons already mentioned above; it would seem they are indeed valid according to WP:SOFTWARE. I suggest we make it into a stub, and let it improve. --APEC
This AfD appears to have been lost somehow. Relisted once more... Zetawoof(ζ) 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supergoal[edit]

Neologism, original research. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A search for supergoal + psychology gives 364 results from a number of sources, which doesn't signal OR to me. It does need referenced, though. —dustmite 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add sources & references --Storkk 12:24, 4 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. W.marsh 02:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Adverse Neurological Effects following SSRI discontinuation[edit]

Hoax/Non scientific data Johnvai 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC) These cause reports exist only because ONE guy has a page on a online Journal which looks much like anything?[1] You'll find nothing about such a "PANES" in the litterature... Maybe deleting this article would be relevant Johnvai 02:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be more citations on this page--only one link is given to a website which describes only five case reports--none of which describe lasting tardive dyskensia, RLS, or neuropathic pain.

The discussion below convinces me that there is no there there. Michael Kinyon 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The so-called reference cites only five cases, all collected by one author, with no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the symptoms described were caused by the withdrawal of the SSRI. The study he reports is bad science. I have personally prescribed SSRIs since their inception and have never seen the conditions he describes, with the single exception of persistent depression, which, of course, is just a pre-existing condition re-manifesting. Also, is not original research prohibited in wikipedia?--Anthony.bradbury 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as violations of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is more of the same old made-up FUD by the usual suspects that are out to attack all psychiatric medications. --Aaron 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree, did a MEDLINE research on that PANES stuff... No such thing as PANES. A link to PANES been placed on every SSRI pages... Wikipedia is being taken over by PANES... Can we delete this as fast a possible please:) Johnvai 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Medline coming up a blank on this one, including checking B Green. At best, this appears to fall under original research. Espresso Addict 05:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but merge. It is the term "PANES" that is dubious, rather than the condition itself. This phenomenon is relatively rare, but it most certainly exists, usually in previous long-term users of SSRIs - there are a great many examples of these long-term after effects of SSRIs cited in medical literature (PubMed will throw up many cases). There are, however, no sources for anything called "PANES", since the term is not in common usage, and the website linked to here is insufficient. It is also bad practice to name a "syndrome" which is not fully understood, and which may not be properly defined as a syndrome at all (two different patients may exhibit symptoms which do not overlap, and could conceivably result from two entirely separate adverse reactions to discontinuation). The whole subject is wreathed in controversy - what seems clear is that it is entirely wrong to write off this information as "made-up FUD", but it's also entirely wrong to apply a spurious term to a phenomenon which has not been fully investigated (a term which is, in any case, not recognised by any prominent scientists). In my opinion, this page should be deleted, BUT the information (or a rewrite of the information acknowledging the conflicting opinions on this subject) should be merged into SSRI discontinuation syndrome. MrBronson 23:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a Persistant adverse effects topic in the SSRI discontinuation syndrome article, listing some symptoms (akathisia, sexual problems...) there is no information on this page that should be kept since thoses most of these symptoms are not reported in the litterature. Johnvai 16:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of being pedantic, there are actually well over 100 reports of SSRI-related movement disorders listed in PubMed alone. WP's own page on tardive dyskinesia lists chronic SSRI use as a possible cause. An overview can be found at http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm under the section heading "Therapeutic / Normal Dose Dependence". Another page containing pertinent information is here: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/mar3/adrac/adrac.html ... I have never heard of neuropathic pain as a post-SSRI symptom, but all the other symptoms listed here have been reported from time to time and appear in online case histories. It is perhaps a good idea to add them to the section of SSRI discontinuation syndrome mentioned above, albeit with a caveat stating that these symptoms are rare and there *may* not be a direct connection to discontinuation of SSRIs (although anyone with even a passing interest in psychiatry will appreciate that the concept of chronic use of psychotropic medicines producing adverse neurological effects is hardly outrageous). However, as I stated above, I agree that this page is essentially redundant and should be deleted. The information presented here does not qualify as OR (despite the lack of sources provided) but it is not presented in a suitable manner - chiefly because of the spurious use of the term "PANES". MrBronson 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spurious use of the term "PANES" as the title and subject of the article is itself more than enough reason to delete it once it's been proven that nobody in the medical community uses that term. My use of the phrase "made-up FUD" was in regards to the attempt by the article's creator to turn these symptoms into their own "disease", almost certainly for the purpose of scaring potential patients from considering the use of SSRIs whatsoever even if they could greatly benefit from them. I have no quarrel with anyone taking any legitimate parts from this article and putting them into SSRI discontinuation syndrome along with any necessary disclaimers about conflicting opinions on the issue. There's no need to wait for this AfD to finish before doing that; I'd do it myself, but I'm not an MD or a pharmacologist. --Aaron 18:07, 3 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. W.marsh 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sound Systems[edit]

Tagged as db-group but does not formally qualify. Decent stub, not advertorial, creator has contributions to other music-related articles, on the other hand the evidence of this passing WP:CORP is absent from the article or a quick Google. Needs a bit of thought, this one. Guy 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thue (programming language)[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Please. This is one of the most notable of them all. -- Gwern (contribs) 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very good programming language, and should stay. Xoloz, have YOU tried making an esolang? If not, don't get rid of this page, 'cos it's a hard thing to do. If so, you should appreciate the effort it takes, and not delete this, especially if it sucks more than this. --User:Thematrixeatsyou/sig 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC) - I created the Esolang known as RETURN.
  • Delete Being based on an intersting paradigm (semi-Thue systems) does not make the language itself notable. —Ruud 13:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thue is one of the more notable esoteric programming languages, and is probably the original string-rewriting esolang. To Thematrixeatsyou: Xoloz didn't nominate this, he's relisting a previous AfD nomination that was overturned for procedural reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages for the original AfD). --ais523 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cement brazil[edit]

  • A curious article, not sure what to make of it other than it does not meet {{db-band}}. Guy 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanispamcruftisement. Argyriou 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I speedied previously because it made no assertions to notability (that I could glean), and thus did not meet WP:CORP. - CobaltBlueTony 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or big time cleanup. Article is pratically non-sensical but I can envision a decent article on this topic. Cool3 01:29, 3 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 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kotel Systems[edit]

Non-notable company, haven't produced anything, website is dead, fails Google test — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. --grummerx 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. company has released previous software for private investors. It is in the middle of producing a game that will be featured in the magazines pc gamer and pc zone. It is earning money. It has a website that is being re-developed.
    • I can't find it with a Google search and the website is barely a stub. I still vote to delete. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. i am part of the kotel team and we are a strong and growing company which will thrive and be successful. swillard8 2/10/06 — Possible single purpose account: swillard8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep. Various private applications have been released. How can kotel systems have made money if they hadn't released anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.141.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete; even says in the article it is a small company. The website is "under development". May meet new spam csd.--Andeh 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very notable. --Kjoonlee 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and salt the earth. Does not meet WP:CORP at all. --Storkk 12:27, 4 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. W.marsh 02:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Salisbury[edit]

non-notable local architect and local candidate for city council. Article also reads very non-NPOV. Delete. Andy Saunders 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting, but definitely non-notable. Delete Kazmarov 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a landscape architect and advocate of natural burials, he's notable. I added several references, including clippings from The Post-Standard and The Link. See the references section of the article. I agree that a candidate who has not held office is not normally considered notable, but because he is notable in his profession, his article should be kept. (We had a similar discussion recently about a city council candidate in Washington, D.C. who turned out to be a notable law professor.) --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Little support for the claims that he is the recognised authority on the field; the article claims he is "a recognised authority on the natural burial movement" which he co-founded [37]. Links to pages that tells about his importance are genarally sites of societies etc. that he is involved with. Of the users who created the article, User:Earthartist is Mr Salisbury himself (compary userpage with [38]). His contributions to Wikipedia are all related to his business. The user who started the article is most probably involved with Mr. Salisbury in one way or another, since his contribs1 show the same pattern. Obviously his name has been mentioned in the local press, which does not prove much notability. Article written in a style as to show importance; the title which the article describes Mr. Salisbury as "the author of" is a thesis [39] and since the article does not say he is a PhD, it is no doubt an undergrad thesis. // habj 09:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthartist. // habj 09:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2D (programming language)[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Most importantly, there are no credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Satori Son. —Ruud 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable. As per my criteria I would change my vote upon the presentation of a few good sources. Cool3 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2D or not 2D that is the question! Anyway per above. Whispering(talk/c) 17:49, 4 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. W.marsh 02:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online personal trainer[edit]

Contested Prod. Advertisement for http://www.liveleantoday.com created by User:Livelean, who has no other contributions except to put the same ad on his userpage [40] (since removed). Prod was removed without comment by 70.176.233.13 (talk · contribs), whose only other contributions have been inserting linkspam for this website in various other articles. Pure WP:VSCA. -- Fan-1967 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Speedily with prejudice, this is not a source of information, just advertising, and since there is a history of spamming, add the URL to the block list. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are working on fixing the article, we want to contribute good information and have lots of resources to offer high quality material on a variety of diet and fitness information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.233.13 (talk • contribs)
  • You have lots of advertising to offer for your products and services. Fan-1967 03:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Brée[edit]

The article (rather, the person in question) does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics), or at least does not establish that. It seems that the person is "yet another" academic. Furthermore, the bio has been taken from Bree's personal website (linked in the article). I did my research, but if somebody proves me wrong, I will step away from this (please try to do that). --dcabrilo 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Renegade[edit]

Suspect vanity -- I have not heard of this band and google shows little other than their myspace. Most notable gig seems to be someone's birthday Richard Clegg 18:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not establish notability per WP:MUSIC, also appears to be unverifiable. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Unless I'm missing something, there isn't a single claim of even the least bit of notability in the article. Not at all. -- Kicking222 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the problem? Although just starting out, Green Renegade is already gaining cult status in York, his Myspace profile has received over a 1000 hits in its first six weeks, and he is soon to collaborate with established artists Vital and Biru, and sign to the Beyond Muzak Record Label. -- User 19:49, 29 September 2006 (BST)
  • No offense is intended by this -- Wikipedia is quite strict on which bands are included. It is no criticism of the band itself. If you look at WP:MUSIC you will find guidelines. If your band meets these then it is notable enough for inclusion. --Richard Clegg 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:45, 2 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 failure of WP:WEB and WP:RS. --Nishkid64 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapokemon.net[edit]

Delete as non-notable website. No evidence from reliable sources that the site meets the criteria laid out in WP:WEB. Beyond that, the article is blatantly subjective and written in first person. The dates and statistics help assert its non-notability; recently moved to its own domain (from Freewebs!), no Alexa rank, etc. --Kinu t/c 18:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant cruft, fails to establish notability, and is unverifiable. Alexa can only state that it is "outside top 100,000. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skank[edit]

Nearly six months after the first AFD, this article is still a dictionary definition, and looks like it will always remain one. Articles can link to Wiktionary. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not only a dicdef, but apparently original research. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Wikitionary article on it does not have nearly the detail that the Wikipedia article goes into. For example, Wikitionary says it can be used as a verb, referring to a dance move. Wikipedia describes the dance move. Wikitionary says it refers to a promiscuous woman. Wikipedia goes into greater detail. The level of detail in the Wikipedia article would not be appropriate in Wikitionary, but someone who had been called a "skank" and wanted to know what it was might appreciate a greater level of detail. So I suppose my vote would have to be a weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of people would appreciate original research, but we still have a policy against it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia describes the dance move in Skank (dance). Remove that from this article (where it doesn't belong, per skank (disambiguation)) and all that we have left are statements that a skank is either a selfish female or a person who smells bad, along with a whole load of unsourced commentary and vague insinuation. The article is in two minds about what a skank actually is. In both cases, this is a silly title at which to have an encyclopaedia article on the subjects of personal hygiene or promiscuity. If we are not having an article on those, then what is this article to be about (that isn't already covered by the other articles linked from skank (disambiguation))? The territory in this article is already covered by the Wiktionary article and by other articles on the dance move, on hygeiene, and on promiscuity, and a disambiguation is sufficient for leading readers to each. Uncle G 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't even see the otheruses template; it was hidden by the AFD tag. If the dance move already has its own article then I'd agree that this is edging from a weak keep to a neutral, especially if some of the additional detail could be incorporated into the dictionary page.
  • Recommendation to closing admin: I agree that this should be deleted, but there ate claims here not in Wiktionary. Transwikiing this to their (vacant) talk page might be a service to wikimedia in general. Septentrionalis 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Wikipedia can go into greater details on the word usage than wiktionary would. It shouldn't be difficult to find sourced material differentiating skank from slut (read that article, please, to see how articles about words grow). SchmuckyTheCat 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • False. Wiktionary can go into as much detail on word usage as editors are prepared to write. (Indeed, usages and etymologies are two of its primary functions.) Wiktionary is not paper. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia's function is not to be about the words, but about what the words denote. Uncle G 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not false, this subtle semantic schism about what wiktionary is for vs what wikipedia is for doesn't make sense to stub articles. As long as wiktionary is a separate project on a separate server it is a poor destination for wikipedia articles. You're more than welcome to take this text to wiktionary AS WELL AS keep it here on wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worthwhile article, can be expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, nuff said. Eusebeus 07:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very keep!! Offensive concepts should [must] be studied. hopiakuta 08:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot of room for expansion. I've included some notable comments and references such as it being notable enough to be a title of a book that is getting a lot of press coverage. Agne 11:35, 5 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 06:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Empire[edit]

Was prodded by me as non-notable. Prod removed, added real name and more details. Still nothing notable. Most Ghits relate to forums, messageboards etc. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V --Richhoncho 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article fails to establish notability, is also unverifiable to this point. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn bio; No references; possible hoax. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unsourced, probable hoax. NawlinWiki 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless strongly verified using reliable sources. Very likely hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Prodego talk 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BookRags[edit]

BookRags was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-28. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookRags/2006-09-28.
BookRags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cavalcade of Wikispam

CONTINUOUS WIKISPAM. This time it appears a Wikiepdia editor, who previously only edited or contributed to articles in a narrow field of science, has taken it upon his or herself to champion inclusion of this spammy site which had been deleted repeatedly. The only references in the article presented by the editor are press releases and the about page, sources clearly not part of notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.123.120 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-14 07:42:21

  • The article at this title has only been deleted once, not "repeatedly", and a good faith interpretation of the actions of Lethaniol (talk · contribs) is that xe is trying to create a good article on this subject from sources, but that xe has simply not chosen any independent sources, not being aware that one should employ independent sources. The question for AFD is whether any such sources exist. You have presented no evidence that you have actually looked to see whether this is the case. Your nomination is based solely upon the sources cited in the article. It is every editor's responsibility at AFD to do the research. This means looking for sources yourself, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. One editor in the last AFD discussion looked for sources xyrself, and cited an article about BookRags written in 2000 by Beth Bruno. Uncle G 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reason I have recreated this article is because I believe it is notable. A search for literature guides in google will bring out BookRags in the top 20 results [41], and Alexa data suggests that BookRags is continuing to move up the rankings [42]. Having said that reliable sources are required, and I need to work on that now (note I have been busy with other things, and when I have edited BookRags it has been to remove inappropriate comments). A criticism that has been leveled is that this is just a spammy site. I have seen no evidence of this, but even if this is the case, as long as the subject is notable then even if it does spam it should still have an article. Also note that one of the main reasons I became interested in BookRags is because it had easy and cheap paid access to published material, that I could not find elsewhere. I will add more soon. Cheers Lethaniol 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in terms of my experience - my contributions and experience go well beyond science, including development of the articles Catch-22 and Waldorf Education, being the main developer of WP:ADOPT and current involvement in two ArbCom cases by mentoring involved parties - [43] and [44].
  • Independent sources as mentioned there is the Q&A by Beth Bruno [45], also education institutions starting to use BookRags as an external link [46] and [47], news on development of Sonet Remixing [48], a comparison of online study guides [49]. Hmmm I admit these look a bit weak, but please note none of them are blogs or personal reviews - that is all the semi-notable links I can find. I will leave it up to others to decide whether it is enough. Cheers Lethaniol 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been deleted many times, perhaps not under this name but under bookrags.com or bookrags Inc. I remember that, and I see nothing had changed. I am not sure if the site is "spammy" but I do know it had to be removed several times from various other sections for spamming Wikipedia. The sources above are not notable and at least one of them, the webknowhow.net article, is a reprint of a press release. There is no evidence that educational institutions are using Bookrags, merely a directory-style link from an Indiana department of Education website. And there is an interview with the founder from 2000. Sorry, this clearly does not meet notability guidelines. Seizer000 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does the site meet WP:WEB? - Ozzykhan 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly intended as spam on behalf of this company. This company is fairly unethical in its pay and its treatment of its workers; this is documented and was included in the entry, validating the page somewhat, and the fact that it was taken out confirms that the article only exists to promote BookRags. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. IP - 24.71.104.147
I suggest Anon IP you read WP:AGF carefully - this article IS NOT intended as spam. I wrote the article in good faith, but I do understand that it may not meet WP:WEB. How it treats it workers is irrelevant to whether it is notable enough. Note the reason why the info on it unethical pay was removed was because there was no source to back it up. Although this AFD may be closed with a delete, I suggest people disregard 24.71.104.147's comments, as they are clearly in bad faith. Cheers Lethaniol 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree about bad faith of the article's originator, however in terms of WP:WEB it seems pretty cut and dry-- it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Sites like these are on the very edge and personally I think WP:WEB is the problem, not the site. If that ever changes, this site could be resubmitted but until then it does not meet the guidelines.Metrofeed 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[Metrofeed][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Stained Glass Romance[edit]

Article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Prod tag removed by author. There are a fair amount of google hits (116 unique pages, 21 of them have the band name in the title). I haven't yet found anything that would constitute "non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry, you gotta tour further than northeast USA, and per nom. Guyanakoolaid 08:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So touring the world makes you known? They've played from Florida to New York, that's not just "Northeast USA". Lacstewie 19:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Touring past the northeast USA is not covered in WP:MUSIC. You need multiple "non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Murad[edit]

This was tagged as a copyvio, but I'm not sure that it's a word for word cut and paste. I am sure that it's spamvertising for the good doctor's dermatology business. NawlinWiki 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn bio. No 3rd party secondary sources appear to exist. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I tagged it as a speedy, but upon closer review, the author changed a few sentences so it's not a cut and paste. Darn. -- Merope Talk 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:BIO.--Gay Cdn (talk)(email) (Contr.) 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I work for Murad and www.murad.com and we are trying to create an article that meets the standards of Wikipedia. We are not infringing on any copyrighted material as it is our copyright. Please instruct us on creating this in accordance to Wikipedia standards. We have followed the examples of Dell and other large companies. We are not spamvertising, we have a small number of informational links to support the article. Where is the spam? Each article we looked at on Wikipedia has the same. Please inform us how we are breaking any of Wikipedia's rules. We would like to represent our company and provide the public information on Dr. Murad and Murad, Inc. The accusations above are not based in fact. First, there was a mistake by someone flagging us for speedy deletion, based on a copy and paste copyright infringement. We can not infringe on our own copyright and revised some of the initial copy we wrote. We have met the criteria of WP:BIO. The information is factual and unbiased. We only state purely unopionated facts about Dr. Murad and his contribution to the Dermatology field. Instead of false accusations, please provide solutions to some real issues with the article so we can correct them. We have taken out anything that could be considered opinion and added a reference to www.acnecomplex.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.214.63.36 (talk • contribs)
    • Since you ask You have not followed the example of Dell, since that article was written by people not associated with Dell, using third party sources independent of Dell, and includes criticism of the company, as required by the core policies of Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. By your admission above, this article violates all three policies. It is all but impossible for you, as an employee of Dr. Murad, to write a policy-conforming article, and a non-conforming article written by someone with a financial interest in the subject is, by Wikipedia's definition, spam. If and when Dr. Murad has enough written about him independent of his own advertising and press releases, someone else will create an article. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are reasons that WP:VANITY is a guideline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Companies are judged by the standards at WP:CORP. Individuals are judged by the standards at WP:BIO. To meet either standard, there need to be independent Reliable Sources about the subject of the article. This is to ensure that WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, both of which are core policies, can be adhered to. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. GRBerry 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per point made by Robert A.West. GregorB 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you for your response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.243.44 (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 Re-direct - article was copyvio, re-directed phrase Wal-Mart Effect to Criticism of Wal-Mart article. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart Effect[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article. It is rather an essay about Wal*Mart. Djcartwright 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POnju[edit]

Appears to be non-notable forum. Article is unreferenced and unverifiable. Alexa reveals a traffic rank of 1,824,095 [50] Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can we delay this for a little? Edits to this article are currently being used as evidence in a WP:RFC against POnju. If the article is deleted, the evidence by way of his edits won't be accessible to people who need to read it to make a decision. Xuanwu 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No more delay please - just delete it. Revenge against pOnju for Xuanwu being banned from pOnju forums (again) is no reason for the article to be preserved. Xuanwu, it won't give you satisfaction to get pOnju banned here: he doesn't care about Wikipedia, he just wanted to correct half-truths.Jonathan888 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment: Alexa rank is not a valid measure of notability. It's why it was removed from WP:WEB. I agree it's currently unreferenced, but I don't think it is impossible to correct that situation. Xuanwu 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the page and talk page(I presume that's where the evidence is) possibly be moved to User Space if the vote was to delete, in order to maintain the evidence? Canadian-Bacon t c e 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, never done one of these before and I'm kinda green, so I'm not really sure if it saves my info automatically or whether I need to fill it in. Who keeps putting notices about the subject's "importance" is that ponju? Alot of those notations have no meaning. The unverified link is sorta valid as there are alot of people that just come up an say stuff, but encyclopedic tone is irrelevent as it is written about ponju for ponju members, there are not many refernces to actually cite as it does not draw any outside info, and the importance is irrelevant as it is a fangroup type site and as such has no importance outside the site, unlike Chiromancy. There's a link to the history of ponju in my account, if you want evidence. Though I'd rather the ponju section not be closed (anymore than Okashina Okashi) as it is a informational link. User:bulmabriefs144
          • Encyclopedic tone, outside sources and importance are irrelevant no matter what we are writing about. This is an encyclodia, not an Indescriminent collection of information. Also information that "is a fangroup type site and as such has no importance outside the site" is commonly refered to as Cruft and is usually deleted. Canadian-Bacon t c e 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The following is what constitutes indescriminant information:
              • "Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
              • Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
              • Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
              • Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
              • Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
              • Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
              • Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."

pOnju does not contain any of the following things, aside from it being an internet guide. This means the only real problem is cleaning out some of the cruft and rendering it in encyclopedic tone. User:bulmabriefs144

The fact that it IS an internet guide, means that it fits into that defination. Examples of notable websites are Google and Yahoo. They have information cited from major news sources, proving their worth beyond that of an Internet Guide. Canadian-Bacon t c e 07:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Could not the impact the forum has had on its comics be considered its impact and therefore importance? The many comics the forum hosts have received awards and nominations and the feedback that the forum allows could be held as contributing to the success of its comics. We need an outside source that says that though, correct?
  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps before deleting, this could be cleaned up though. It becomes something other than an internet guide if it has encyclopedic tone. Bulmabriefs144 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is not just a matter of "tone." It's a matter of no verifiable information from reputable third-party reliable sources that even mentions this trivial topic, let alone suggests it has any sort of notable "achievements, impact or historical significance." That is, this article does not, and appears to have no chance at this time, of meeting WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOT. Not to methion WP:NOR since without reliable sources all we're left with is original research, as well as WP:NPOV since we can't fairly cover all significant published points of view if not even a single point of view is covered by reliable sources. In other words, this fails every single content policy we have. -- Dragonfiend 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I'm pretty sure I can find a couple offline newspaper articles that mention pOnju. They were printed in a paper local to Worcester, MA. I just need to find time to sift through the old copies I still have lying around. While not a major media source, the paper is at least a reliable source. Also, take into account the Hamthology project: once it's complete, there will be secondary sources that review it and mention its source, making the forum worthy of inclusion. So, a couple articles now that can provide background and help take a little sting off the WP:V and WP:RS violations and the potential future articles mean this entry has hope of becoming encyclopedic. And an article that has the potential to be encyclopedic should not be deleted, just cleaned up. Xuanwu 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If anything the edits yesterday by User:POnju show how much original research is in the article, not to mention that seeing him edit implies that the article is Vanity. Canadian-Bacon t c e 05:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is unfortunately true: Henry's edits have made the article much more original research and POV than it was when the original team of editors (Pipian, Ed, myself, others) were constructing the page. I've tried my best to keep pOnju's continued insertion of unverfiable items in check. After his RFC is finished, though, he may be barred from editing Wiki, which will largely fix the current edit war problem the article is facing. Xuanwu 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable forum. Has a brief mention of a person named 'pOnju' - might want to merge this to the appropriate article... or not. And why is this discussion so long? No chance I'm reading this crap :P --- RockMFR 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To a few users like myself it is a notable forum. To the general world it's a minor footnote in a vast sea of webcomics and forums. It was fun seeing a Wiki article about pOnju, but it really doesn't merit a Wiki page. The only possible argument I can see for keeping the article is the 'long-tail' theory of Wikipedia: that it is more inclusive in knowledge than Britannia or other encyclopedia sources. It seems to be worthy of a speedy deletion IMHO since the article has turned into an edit war between the creater of the webpage and users who have been banned from the webpage, and thus any hope for NPOV is lost. 198.50.4.4 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Jonathan888 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (signed in so my comments would be properly signed)[reply]
    • Restart. What I would actually agree upon is a delete provided it could be started over from scratch with agreement of no interference from either Ponju himself, or the banned members. It might still degenerate into meaningless information, but maybe a new start telling the various basic points- who it was started by (maybe basic info too), the webcomics hosted there, the Ponju Anthology, and some of the traditions and history- would make it closer to objective form. Chance are even if it isn't in the local paper, someone would hear mention of it elsewhere online, and want to know about it (similar to how I first learned of Megatokyo). Not seeing any info would be a mark against Wiki's all-inclusive nature. I mean, just today I found out Wiki also has Klaatu barada nikto as a subject, as well as the Konami Code. If that isn't geeky, not to mention very irrelevant, I dunno what is. Bulmabriefs144 01:53, 6 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of High School Colors[edit]

Unmanageable, unencyclopedic listcruft. Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. GTBacchus(talk) 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible delete I swear to god, if the school inclusionists try to keep this crap, I'll leave Wikipedia forever. This page is a joke. -- Kicking222 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete being that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, which this article definitely is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Cruft Batman...Delete Nip this in the bud before it becomes the longest document written by man. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the reasons named, and most especially WP:NOT. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should we include List of College School Colors along with this nomination? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this discussion is already rolling, I just added a separate AfD for that one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of College School Colors. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and subsequent posts). -- MarcoTolo 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Salad Days 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above :) --Alex (Talk) 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not needed. Punkmorten 21:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete before someone decides to expand this.--Húsönd 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is really no point to this. RFerreira 23:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: incomplete to the point of uselessness. Would still be useless even if it were complete - this information belongs on the schools' pages, if anywhere. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above Bwithh 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above and wack FW with pillow for deprodding it forcing us to go through this inane discussion. JoshuaZ 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an attempt to not make a personal attack, I'll just say something along the lines of "The ideas and opinions of the (deprodding) user you mention above, which do not seem particularly well thought out, occasionally make me want to vomit." -- Kicking222 02:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is stupid. Danny Lilithborne 06:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Subwayguy 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment articles like this are the obvious and logical follow-on to the "All Schools are notable" mentality of numerous editors here. Carlossuarez46 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But...but... think of the opportunities being lost here. Without this as a gateway, how will we ever progress to essential articles like the List of all high schools for which sepia is among the school colors? Oh. Wait. That's not what WP is for in the least. I urge deletion with strong prejudice against recreation ... while there's still time. Serpent's Choice 05:40, 1 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 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Theta Sigma[edit]

does not assert notability per WP:NOTE CobaltBlueTony 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's been around for almost 100 years, it's spread to several schools, it needs to be expanded and sourced not deleted. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not terribly interesting, but I can't argue against the points that ONUnicorn made. I added some external links. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

KEEP!!!!!!!!!

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

The result was G4 Speedy; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness Combat. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madness combat[edit]

Yes, it's a 35kb article on an unknown web flashcomic. Read it if you dare. NawlinWiki 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Didn't we just delete this? I thought we just did. Anyway delete per WP:WEB and salt the earth. And I'm off to find a spoon to dig out that horrible article from my brain. Whispering(talk/c) 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spectacularly non-notable, and nauseating as well.--Anthony.bradbury 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete no evidence presented of coverage by reliable sources. W.marsh 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeFRaG[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article shouldn't be considered for deletion. It's well-written with attention to encyclopedic style and conventions, and due to the fact that it's a Quake III mod, not commercial software, it does not need to be written about in a notable publication or some such. There is a dedicated community of people online who play it; see the "external links" section of the article itself. Besides, WP:SOFTWARE is not an official policy.
--Ryodox 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Ryodox Pogo 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First time I ever heard the claim that non-commercial software doesn't need verification, and I hope it's the last. Non-notable game mod. Fan-1967 21:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see it now: WP flooded by unverifiable OpenSourceVanity (tm) entries. Claims to include: "Microsoft out of business as 94% of net users now surfing with Opera", "Using GCC to file income taxes shown to reduce cavities by 50%", "Duke Nukem Forever released - really!". Delete as vicarious vanity. -- MarcoTolo 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps, if the subjects were irresponsibly written about, but the article in question has been written with appropriate attention to encyclopedic convention.
  • Strong keep. As per Ryodox. By the way, the game is very popular among Q3 and CPMA fans, it had and has also a large community. Just check qty of websites dedicated to this mod. Visor 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. A dozen unreliable sources does not equal one reliable one. Fan-sites are hardly suitable source material for an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn game mod. SchmuckyTheCat 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep encyclopedic. Shouldn't be hard to find sources. Moreover, the software itself can be used as a source. — brighterorange (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR 66.246.72.108 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have cleaned up article, added some reliable references and cleaned up external links section. I disagree it's non notable mod, and here are some proofs:
    • Number of downloads, for example Defrag 1.9 at http://www.planetquake3.net/download.php?op=fileid&lid=1723: 23585 downloads
    • Defrag section at OPC forums (that's one of the most, if not the most, popular Defrag forum) has 4'895 threads and 103'643 posts. [51]
    • Competitions, eg. Defrag World Cup, SDC, Breakdown [52]
    • There are lots of Defrag game movies [53] [54]
    • Defrag community is not at golden year, but it's still active. It has hundreds of fan and clan's pages (check Google or some Defrag websites links sections)
    • More than 1000 fan-created maps [55] [56]

If there is no reference to sentence or fact in article, mark it with fact template. I/or sb else will check trueness of it and, if it possible, add a proper reference. Visor 14:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • References to fan sites are nice and such, but they don't really qualify as reliable secondary sources. What we are looking for is something like an article about it in PC Gamer or Computer Gaming World or something like that. Other mods have been featured in popular online/print magazines, so this is not discriminatory against mods or anything. Wickethewok 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference has been replaced to reliable one. Visor 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[57] might apply here - Estel (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but the above dispute was based on the reliability of information in the sources used (that is, the source themselves questioned the reliability of their own scattered information), not the reliability/legitimacy of the sources themselves. In any case, it states that there must be a large number of published sources discussing the subject, so I don't think its particular applicable. Wickethewok 20:18, 1 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of College School Colors[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unmanageable listcruft. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of High School Colors for a related discussion. Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Immediately. This is listcruft at its most banal. -- MarcoTolo 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Salad Days 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MarcoTolo --Alex (Talk) 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above.--Húsönd 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above Bwithh 02:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buh-Bye! --Rehcsif 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is stupid. Danny Lilithborne 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Unfortunately I am unclear as to why somebody would need to look up information of this nature. So I believe this listing is a little too trivial to be considered encyclopedic. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons to delete the high school colors article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. Carlossuarez46 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the sort of thing that gets Wikipedia mocked as a list of lists. [58] Robert A.West (Talk) 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above is a list and not encyclopedic. Also does not provide any useful information such as mascot, or history of selection.Fmandog85 19:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:46, 2 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 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Joseph Watson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for being a colleague of Alex Jones and article cites his relationship to Jones as his only notability. (Please note that his book was published by "Alex Jones Productions". [59]) This article was part of a walled garden of articles about Alex Jones on Wikipedia, almost all of which have since been deleted. My vote is to delete this as well. Aaron 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Verdict on that AfD was "no consensus." You can't really cite a "no consensus" AfD as evidence that an article should be kept, as consensus can change. At any rate, regardless of your promises to expand the article, I remain dubious as to how the article can be expanded and reliably sourced to back up that expansion. Such an expansion runs a serious risk of presenting granularity not supported by this individual's notability, and most sources that could be used to expand the article are Alex Jones websites.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Crockspot 16:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Sometimes articles go through half a dozen AfDs before they get deleted. ergot 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe that's a clue they shouldn't be deleted? It's just basic statistics that eventually you'll get a delete vote by AFD'ing enough times, for all but the completely unarguable keeps. That's the reason we don't let prosecutors do that, not that a Wikipedia article actually matters.Derex 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge Any useful info into Jones' parent. Not enough RS. · XP · 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain The notability claims here are made, but really downplayed (Vanity Fair, major radio, etc.) Because of that, I suspect that they are exaggerated. If those can be documented, then keep it because some people may want to know more about a chap often they hear on the radio. And providing useful information is what we're all about, right? Derex 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hunted down the Vanity Fair thing, and it turns out to be a couple of a paragraphs about Watson inside a gigantic article about the overall conspiracy movement in America ("Welcome to the Conspiracy", by Rich Cohen, May 2004 VF, pp 138-154). --Aaron 16:50, 2 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 no evidence presented of coverage by reliable sources. W.marsh 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge ProMode Arena[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ryodox 20:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per Ryodox Pogo 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable game mod. Fan-1967 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Large community and one of the most popular Q3 mod. Some proof of CPMA's notability and popularity: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] Visor 08:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of multiple reliable sources, not verifiable without original research. Wickethewok 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable game mod. 66.246.72.108 06:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've cleaned up, added some references and proofs of mod's notability (no. of downloads, leauges and world-wide competitions). Please reconsider your vote. Visor 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment AfD is not a vote. And references from the games website aren't considered reliable sources. Whispering(talk/c) 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it's an official website? Visor 14:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, what we need is reliable secondary sources to be specific - that is, sources other than those responsible for the product in question. Wickethewok 18:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron[edit]

non notable corporation (see: WP:CORP), spamvertisment (WP:NOT) MidgleyDJ 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But wait, Ektron "is the leader in Web content management system". Oh, yeah, they're not. I can't even find any sources that say they're a leader. Delete as WP:VSCA. Fan-1967 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- MarcoTolo 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query The AfD notice has been removed from the Ektron page by 208.29.195.106. I'm unsure of the protocol here? Should I reinstate it? MidgleyDJ 23:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would - removal of an AfD tag says "vandalism" in my book.... -- MarcoTolo 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ....which is even noted in the WP:GTD (link to from the AfD header notice). (Specific link here. -- MarcoTolo 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 01:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Ultimate Masters: World Championship Tournament 2006[edit]

Currently not encyclopedic, in a group of games that mostly don't have articles Kazmarov 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is just a list of cheats, not suitable for an encyclopedia.Keep due to major change. --Alex (Talk) 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just made it into a suitable stub. Nemu 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zdio 22:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stubbified. If there's not much to say about this game then it might be worth considering a merge into a wider article about Yu-Gi-Oh! games, to provide useful context and make comparisons easier, but there's certainly no precedent to delete anything like this. — Haeleth Talk 09:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of series connected to the Tommy Westphall Universe[edit]

In my opinion, this page does not conform by any stretch of the imagination to WP:NOR. All additions of shows, movies, etc. to the page are unreferenced, and the asserted connections made are not even stated. Any attempt to make this page properly referenced would need to provide a list of shows defined as connected from a primary source like a newspaper, and I know of no such source. "A link to someone's attempt to research this on their own" is not a source, and would also fall under WP:NOR. Although the article Tommy Westphall (Universe) might survive an AFD because its existence is discussed in primary sources, this is pure unreferenced speculation. I could add any show I wanted to this article, and declaratively add it to the 'Tommy Westphall Universe' by doing so. My belief is that unless someone has a statable plan to actually clean this article up, to have it conform to WP:NOR, it should be deleted. Skybunny 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Seems to be a list of most of the series of the last 40 years, with no indication at all how they might be connected. Fan-1967 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Manifestly original research, without any apparent way to ever be otherwise; indicriminate in its present and prospective breadth; unreferenced and probably unverifiable with reliable sources; the entire premise depends from the weasel statement "some argue that any..."; and even if that premise is given every benefit of the doubt, it borders on speedable nonsense.---Fuhghettaboutit 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some also seem to be Kevin Bacon-ish links (show A connected to show B, which is connected to show C...) -- Fan-1967 22:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that this is a phenomenon outside this article[65], but it is still very low-profile and seems to be non-notable speculation so far. Perhaps this idea's time will come, but that time isn't now. Delete. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete pure trivia, original research, and doesn't take into consideration the fact taht Tommy Westphall might have watched something on TV or on the street and then integrated it into his fantasy, thereby breaking the fantasy universe into little tiny pieces. 132.205.44.134 01:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because of any of the arguments already given, but because there's already a website [66] that covers the idea, and it's linked from the Tommy Westphall article. Anybody who is really interested in the idea can look it up from there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merely recreates multiverse website. Seems like it should be on a wiki, but preferably not ours. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main Tommy Westphal article. As for the question of verifiability, it is easy enough to link to one of the online episode guides and verify that said character appeared on said show on said date---thus proving a connection between one program and another. Certainly, no one involved with this AfD is actually going to argue with the fact that certain television shows are connected to certain other television shows because of the "cross-over" of certain characters, yes? The real source of the argument, it seems, is the rejection of the idea of the Tommy Westphal "Universe," which, though it is speculative, is certainly verifiable and has a presence outside of Wikipedia. Skybunny has, in addition to making this AfD nomination, deleted most of the examples of cross-overs from the main Westphal article, indicating (at least to me) a prejudice against the very concept. As I have said, the fact that a character from one series appeared on an episode of another series can be verified, so what exactly is the problem?

---Charles 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Certainly, no one involved with this AfD is actually going to argue with the fact that certain television shows are connected to certain other television shows because of the "cross-over" of certain characters, yes?
Perhaps before I start, I should explain that my intent with this AFD is not to debate the viability of the Tommy Westphall Universe; I'm discussing appropriate material for Wikipedia by policy.
To begin: let's say that the real Shakespeare wrote two fictional plays about a man named Prince Hamlet of Denmark. Are they the same Prince Hamlet, or different ones? The only person that can answer that question authoritatively is Shakespeare. Cliffs notes (or even the plays themselves) do not allow a reader to authoritatively draw this conclusion because by definition, they are two seperate fictional works; the best one can do is infer. If the two written plays were called 'Hamlet I' and 'Hamlet II', that might provide a stronger factual base, but it is still provided by Shakespeare in the form of the titles, and not by his readers. If it is provided by his readers, it is original research in the form of inference.
I do not believe it fair of us as encyclopaedians to assume conclusions about a person's writing and present it as fact, even if it seems obvious to us. Tom Fontana's interview in BBC News merely states that Mr. Fontana is aware of the existence of the Tommy Westphall Universe, not even that he endorses it, or to what extent. The quote was: "Someone did the math once ... and something like 90 per cent of all television took place in Tommy Westphall's mind. God love him."[2] For the record, Wikipedia discourages treating "in universe" facts as real world fact: see WP:WAF. Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective. Comparing in-universe facts - what an episode guide will have in it - and drawing out-of-universe factual conclusions based on it is not considered encyclopaedic by Wikipedia.
I removed most of the crossover content on Tommy Westphall and left one example where Fontana was involved with both series because I think Fontana's intent with St. Elsewhere and Homicide: Life on the Street might be citable. It merely provides a framework by which people put the Westphall universe together, without trying to draw its boundaries, which is what I believe this list article is attempting to do by inference. Skybunny 22:59, 2 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 per CSD A8. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CivicInfo[edit]

Advertisement for company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:RS. Page created by user of name identical to company's. Wickethewok 21:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not a company, but a resource operated by a coalition of several government agencies and related associations. "Nine directors are appointed by professional organizations, six directors are appointed by member communities through regional chapters of the Local Government Management Association of British Columbia, and two serve in an "at large" capacity." A good example of cooperation among municipalities and their associations. And the municipalities and their associations are individually notable, which suggests that CivicInfo might be as well. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the value or notability of this organization, this particular article is copied from their website, so it ought to be nuked as a copyvio. Let someone write something from scratch. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, since it was created less than 48 hours ago, I went ahead and speed-tagged it. --Calton | Talk 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Myers MediaVillage[edit]

Vanity advert. Gets 122,000 Google hits -- only 17 of them unique, a frankly suspicuous ratio. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of several removals with the same summary in an apparent attempt to make some sort of WP:POINT. --Calton | Talk 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advert/spam. -- MarcoTolo 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice towards a better-written replacement. This site is better known simply as "MediaVillage", and Jack Myers is pretty well known in the TV business, but as written this article simply cannot remain. Kill it but give someone a chance to turn it into at least an encyclopedic stub. --Aaron 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio referral[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Spam. -- Fan-1967 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect Redirecting now and anyone can merge whatever content is wanted. W.marsh 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrola[edit]

Original research. There is a confusion that author brings claiming that "vibrola" means general pitch alteration device for guitars. "Vibrola" usually refers to specific device, not general device. "Tremolo" or "tremolo arm" is a wide-spread term for these devices. There is already a tremolo arm article in Wikipedia for "general" term, and "vibrola" refers to vintage-style Gibson and, possibly, Rickenbacker tremolos. Using "vibrola" as a general term without any major references is an original research of the author. GreyCat 22:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. I don't know the details, but from the nomination it sounds like a good candidate for a merge and redirect, maybe to a section on the tremolo arm page that talks about the Gibson Vibrola specifically. --Alan Au 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Oh, well how about that; there's already a section there that talks about the Vibrola. --Alan Au 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge any good information. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exact Software[edit]

The article has been tagged for not asserting notability for a month and a half, without improvement. Assuming that evidence of notability has not been forthcoming (despite the activity of a single-purpose account: Exactamerica (talk · contribs)) because there is none, this company fails WP:CORP and should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If they can't be bothered to establish notability in that time it should not be on Wiki Nigel (Talk) 12:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Abbott[edit]

article doesn't meet up to WP:BIO. No evidence of any notability given. Plays for, and has written 5 songs for a non-notable band? Anger22 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Participating in a band which isn't notable enough for an article is his only claim to fame, clear failure of WP:BIO. --Daniel Olsen 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttle's law[edit]

Outside of Wikipedia this gets precisely eight google hits [67], none of which appear to be reliable sources. Guy 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The first looks like a copy of ours as well. No way to get reliable sources. --Daniel Olsen 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the eight hits, one quotes a different law and one is "Tuttle's law partner.."--Glendoremus 00:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - (G7) per creator and sole contributor request. — ERcheck (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropogeology[edit]

I placed an Original Research tag on this article very early this morning, and it was simply removed by the page creator. I hoped the placing of said tag would result in some positive changes to the article, the tone of which is entirely speculative. Indeed, the first paragraph is made up almost entirely of questions, rather than assertions of fact, and it is facts which are the basis of an encyclopaedia article. Hence, the tone is not encyclopaedic. This reads as a speculative essay, in which the author ventures a possibility, or states a hunch. No such discipline as "anthropogeology" exists in any university, and the links that he provides do not, in any way, support the contentions of the article. In fact, all of the references he provides are copied straight from one of those websites with no citation. To sum up, this is an essay, with no relevant references, and offers opinion and conjecture rather than fact. Charles 23:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term isn't widely used, but the concept of an overlap between anthropology and geology is recognized in a number of ways, as cited in the references. Clarion University uses the term "Anthropology, Geography, and Earth Science". Lucy A. Wilson has a Ph.D. in " "Anthropology and Geology". Indiana University has a department of "Geography, Geology and Anthropology". In short, I think the discipline exists, but it doesn't have a well-settled name yet. Anthropogeology is probably a better name for the time being than "what Lucy Wilson does".--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awkward coinage which fails WP:NEO. Single hit on Google Scholar[68]. Single hit on Google Books[69]. 9 hits excluding wikipedia on main google [70]. Wikipedia should be conservative in evaluating new terms.There's a moral hazard to allowing even academic protologisms on Wikipedia - using Wikipedia to boost presence of term in Google could be viewed as aiding someone's academic career / positioning in academic turf wars Bwithh 02:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willing to Delete Since I wrote the article, I will gladly remove it until the day when the term is more widely used and more papers exist on the subject. I am very willing to remove it, and I will delete it right now, since I am the one that wrote it. --joseph 02:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you are willing to delete it, or are asking for it to be deleted, that is one thing. However, repeatedly blanking the article is inappropriate. ---Charles 02:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you wish to delete the article, blanking it will not do. Place {{db-author}} at the top of the page. It translates to "Delete at author's request." -- Fan-1967 04:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete per nom. Sonic3KMaster(talk) 03:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's an interesting concept, and the main trouble with it is the name. I would rather rename the article to something like "Geology of anthropology" than have it deleted. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under CSD G7 per original author's request. --Satori Son 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy D.. This discipline doesn't exist. Badgerpatrol 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 01:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mayors of the Municipality of Strathfield[edit]

Apart form the last handful, of which at least two should almost certainly be deleted as failing WP:BIO (i.e. below the level of significant national or regional elected office), the very few other blue links appear to be unrelated - other people or dab pages with the same name. So: this is a bare list of links, almost none of them actually links. Given that mayors fall below WP:BIO and most of these are too long ago for the usual vanity crowd and electoral agent puffery of current politicos, this list serves no purpose. The full list is available from the linked source, which should be linked form the municipality article, job done. Guy 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe categorize. Excessive listery, just a list of red/dab links, better served by a link to the site, per nom. --Daniel Olsen 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ambivalent about this given that it seems to have reliable sources. If it were to be kept, we should possibly delink most of them unless they have achieved notability for other reasons. Guy's suggestion about a link makes a lot of sense, however. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the assumption all data is correct and verifiable. Needs further references. It's on par with a recently AfD'd (but kept) similar article, List of Mayors of Geelong. I agree with the delinking of non-notable's as per Capitalistroadster however. -- Longhair\talk 11:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe merge with Municipality of Strathfield as non-links. Certainly seems to be useful and relevant information to me. Lankiveil 21:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge to Municipality of Strathfield - I've deredlinked it and changed to 3 columns to make it less imposing. Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now delinked all entries except for the last 4 which have articles ( perhaps not for long though looking at the last one). This is clearly now just a list that should only exist as either a category or as part of another article- Peripitus (Talk) 09:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Longhair. Also I have cleaned up Bill Carney and have appropriately linked back to this list. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge with Municipality of Strathfield. Why would anyone look this up separately? Also, Strathfield is nice and all but there is no especial claim to notability simply by virtue of being a Mayor or former Mayor of it. Jeendan 02:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote should be for a "Merge", not a "delete". (JROBBO 09:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge - to Municipality of Strathfield as per Peripetus (JROBBO 09:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, or, at least, Move content without redirect into Municipality of Strathfield (and before one of the usual suspects delivers a lecture about GFDL violations, it's a bleeding LIST derived from a book). Per Jeendan: why would someone look this up separately from anywhere OUTSIDE the Strathfield page? --Calton | Talk 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a list, its useful. Delink non-notables though. -- I@n 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All mayors are notable. Rebecca 01:34, 6 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. W.marsh 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minglish[edit]

Unsourced and self-contradictory. A google search (google scholar turned up nothing) on Minglish has very few hits and it seems as though they refer to Minglish as English spoken in Malta, which is much different than a pidgin or contact language. I would simply put a verify tag on the article, but everything in it seems wrong. AEuSoes1 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Legis 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep but consider renaming and definitely expanding and improving the article.
Consider this link
Here's a quote extracted from the above webpage
Broughton (1976) considers the English as used by speakers of Maltese as 'Maltese English'.
This form of speech is characterised by the influence of Maltese on English. If the influence of Maltese on English is minimal, the speech carries with it considerable esteem. If on the Other hand the influence of the mother tongue on English is great, the speech will be socially stigmatised (Borg 1986:12). Camilleri (1995a:88) remarks that "Maltese English is influenced by Maltese on all linguistic levels, namely phonology, grammar, semantics and discourse, but not on the lexical level…."
The other variety, namely Mixed Maltese English, is made up of lexical items from both languages and so involves various types of code-switching (Camilleri 1995a:88). The term 'Mixed Maltese English' was introduced by Borg (1980). Such an example of Mixed Maltese English would be the following instance of motherese:
'Tiha [kis:] il-['mami], literally, "Give-her kiss the-mummy", for "Give mummy a kiss" (Borg 1986:12).
Aquilina (1960:5) had already noticed such a mixed variety of language in Malta. He called it 'Sliema jargon' and attributed it to the feminine gender. According to Aquilina, this mixed variety of speech "is no more than a pretentious hotch potch". Gullick (1976) considers this 'Sliema jargon' Maltese English and a middle status mixture. Today, this mixture can be attributed to both genders and is spreading to almost every locality. This is an alarming fact.
The Maltese are increasingly losing their linguistic competence in both Maltese and English and are relying on a 'hotch potch' of both. Sciriha (1994:322) argues that
"If this situation persists, Malta will cease to be a bilingual nation, but will move toward monolingualism with the language spoken displaying features of both languages in contact. This will eventually give rise to some kind of Pidgin language."

--Richard 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would we rename it to Maltese English? It seems that generally instances of code switching between English and another language have a -nglish name (spanglish, franglish, runglish, tagolish, etc). As simply a form of English this is non-notable (and virtually untouched in the site) but the instances of code-switching seems more relevant. AEuSoes1 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused and not being knowledgeable about linguistics, I'm not sure which way to go. User:Aeusoes1 seems to be arguing against renaming it to Maltese English because, as such, it would be a "non-notable form of English". User:Aeusoes1's argument seems to be to keep the article's title as Minglish. I'm inclined to agree but I'm confused by the quotations that I provided above which use the phrase "Maltese English" rather than "Minglish".
In any event, I think the article content should be kept because the topic is encyclopedic and the content is sourceable although it is currently unsourced (because the article needs to reference sources to support the assertions in it).
As I said, this is not an area of expertise for me so I would appreciate any education and enlightenment that others can provide. --Richard 16:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (about keeping, not about your area of expertise) and I've made some edits to the article that make it less deletable. AEuSoes1 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about keeping both names? I'm more familiar with the term Minglish than Maltese English. Leaving Minglish as the title and adding Maltese English in the first line of explanation. That way, either search will turn the page up. - Elaine
  • Keep Definate phenomenon. JASpencer 10:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:06, 27 September 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, —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be source material on the subject, such as this, this, this, this, and this. There's enough to demonstrate that this idea is not original research, and is accepted (albeit argued about) in the linguistic community. Clearly there should be an encyclopaedia article. The only real question is the title. But that's not for AFD to settle. AFD's rôle is to discuss whether this subject is unverifiable or original research. I merely point out that all of the aforementioned sources call it either Maltese English or Mixed Maltese English. None of them call it Minglish. The idea that we should be somehow consistent and use an uncommon informal name (based on an equally bizarre notion that doing otherwise magically makes it a "non-notable form of English") is at odds with our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Keep and leave the name discussion to the talk page. Uncle G 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (something} at least, per Uncle G and others who've demonstrated the existence of this particular phenomenon. The sources cited here should be consulted in order to figure out if a better name should be used, but that's hardly a problem warranting deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all languages, dialects, etc. Carlossuarez46 03:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, either as Minglish or Maltese English (with the other one being a redirect). As per [71] this seems to be a real linguistic phenomenon. Themindset 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Maltese English. Ramsquire 18:52, 4 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 Evidence was given that this meets WP:WEB, I suggest citing it clearly in the article to avoid future deletion though. W.marsh 21:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12oz Prophet[edit]

I'm sure the members of 12oz Prophet may get a kick out of this article, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. Zaratoosa 14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP We at 12oz have agreed to make this a serious article, not just "something to get a kick out of." Like I said before, wikipedia is about free information, and this is a notable website in the graffiti world. --Jontimbo
  • Perhaps 12oz's hits should be noted? What is the argument that this is non-notable? Because its not important to you? Graffiti is regarded nation-wide as an important issue, and this site is a hub of the graffiti artists. Where else can you talk to graffiti writers? The streets of new york are covered in paint, but do you ever get to learn anything about what that person's life is like, or who they are, or anything about the artform? No, but this site allows you to. Wikipedia is about free information, and this article provides information about a website that is a core form of communication in a subculture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontimbo (talk • contribs)
  • It should be noted that there is a post on their forum about this discussion now, so we should prepare for an influx of anon "votes" =/. --Wafulz 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be noted that it says in the thread to add to the wiki to make it more legit, and to argue why this should not be deleted. Not to add "VOTES" but to make the wiki better, stop making everything seem like the users of that site are making it a joke. -Grits
  • Delete It was me who prod'd this back in July. It's still an article about a non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Cheekily, the front page of the site has a link straight back to this article along side a link to their myspace. Wikipedia is not a web host. -- IslaySolomon 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPYeah, the worlds largest and best run graffiti website, which has been up for 8 years, has over 55,000 members, 60,000 threads with a combined 2.65 MILLION posts inside those threads, really needs WIKIPEDIA for adspace. NON-NOTABLE website, maybe in your community, but in the graffiti world, this is the ONLY website. Backed by some of the BIGGEST artists in the graffiti community. At least do a little research into things before you describe something as "non-notable". So the worlds biggest graffiti website, which used to be one of the worlds biggest graffiti magazines, which has published one of the greatest graffiti books, which is backed by some of the worlds most famous graffiti artists, isn't notable enough? Grits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.195.76 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User has no contributions outside AfD. User also signed using another's account. --Wafulz

    This part was bullshit, I don't feel like making an account, I've added TONS to different AofDs regarding graffiti articles. I don't have a static IP, so no wonder my IP hasn't contributed anywhere else. I do my part, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.195.76 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-28 16:51:52

    • Art Crimes is Alexa ranked at 25,919, while 12oz Prophet is ranked at 374,883. Upon quick browsing, Art Crimes appears to be the comprehensive source for graffiti information. To my knowledge Art Crimes does not have its own entry, so I don't see how the site in question deserves one.Zaratoosa 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The article on Art Crimes may simply have not yet been written. Our criteria for web sites are WP:WEB, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. The correct discussion to be having is whether there exist any sources, independent of the web site itself, to back up anything at all in the article. Remember the mantra: "Sources! Sources! Sources!". Reading, citing, and evaluating sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. Uncle G 01:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An Alexa ranking in the mid 300,000s, 68 unique links, the vast majority of which are actually not unique (ie ten links coming from one forum) or notable, no news mentions, no major awards, and an article that is completely uninformative- their headquarters is in "teh worldz" and they had net income of over a billion dollars, despite having mods with a "take-no-shit" attitude. Sorry, but this misses WP:WEB by miles. --Wafulz 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to neutral pending source verification. --Wafulz 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep, as mentioned 12ozprophet.com has been an ongoing effort of various minds throughout the world. These include some of the worlds most reknown graffiti artists and is a forum which allows participation from the inexperienced, to the masters of style. As far as not having any news mentions or no credibility as a source, the website in recent months has been highlighted by several news broadcasts. I will ad that with 55,000+ registered members, perhaps to you it is unoticeable, however to the community it is aimed for it is a premier source of information. yes artcrimes is the first website to feature graffiti as its central point, but why should 12oz prophet, a site which started 2 years after, be penalized and not be featured here?189.165.46.229 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Ginger Bread Man[reply]
    • Comment Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also, I have no idea what you mean about it being two years since "be penilized". --Wafulz 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't see what you don't understand about it, makes sense to me. Why should 12oz be penalized because it started two years after Artcrimes, which by the way, has little to no actual content, just alot of pictures and dead links. No thanks. As far as news articles, it seems weird that you would notice the wikipedia article being announced so more people could come on here and fix it, but not notice, http://www.10news.com/news/9858635/detail.html , apparently the news thinks 12oz is a popular site. But how reliable are they? Grits
        • Comment. For establishing notability, we usually require multiple non-trivial notable mentions, with "notable" being very well-known or national news, or at least non-local news. --Wafulz 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. From the top:

    Of course Wikipedia is not a webhost. Clearly 12oz Prophet is strong enough to stand on its own. Yes, there is a link from the main page, so what? There are links to many other sites.

    Yes, artcrimes would appear to be “the comprehensive source for graffiti information” with a cursory look. That is simply because it is the most well-known. I am having a hard time understanding this philosophy that 12oz doesn’t deserve its own article just because artcrimes doesn’t have one. That’s like saying Lili St. Cyr wouldn’t deserve an article if Bettie Paige didn’t have one. Also, if you go to the artcrimes page, and look at their list of best graffiti sites, guess who’s first? 12oz Prophet. Albeit, it is an alphabetical list, but the fact that 12oz is listed should say something.

    Regardless of whether or not you would consider 12oz a “reliable source”, the statistics kept as a function of the message board software should be sufficient enough. (Or, see for yourself on the main page of the forum.)

    THE WRITERS FORUM - THE GRAFFITI DESTINATION Statistics

    Threads: 60,148, Posts: 2,654,921, Members: 55,104, Active Members: 13,037

    Welcome to our newest member, michaeldouglasmc

    Lili St Cynical 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • A reliable source has to be independent and notable. Also, statistics don't usually merit inclusion unless they're particularly outstanding and leading in their field. --Wafulz 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't clear which claims you were asking him to back up. I included those simply to affirm his comments about how busy the site is.Lili St Cynical 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add that 12ozProphet has many more attributes that Art Crimes does not, simply due to the nature of it being a forum. Aside from the pictures, there are instructional threads and topics concerning safety, discussion of legal issues and individual rights, a political and current events forum, and a forum for non-graffiti-related art. I agree that the current article is a little lacking, but I propose that Wiki give us a week to flesh it out a bit more and clean up a bit.(did anyone read this?) Because truth be told, it really is an awesome site, and does deserve to have an articleLili St Cynical 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It will be at least 5 days before an admin decides whether the article should be deleted. If you think a clean-up will help, go for it. I suggest that you stress the site's roots as a magazine. Zaratoosa 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Terrible writing and supposed market worth of $1.5 billion aside, this web site is non-notable, as stated above. -- Kicking222 19:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete To the 12oz Prophet users who are arguing to keep the article, please read WP:WEB and tell us how your site meets the notability guidelines set in that article, because from what I can see, the article makes no attempt to show how it does. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books,..." I will end it right here. Since 12ozprophet, actually started out as a graffiti magazine (a well sought out one, in fact one of the most infamous at it's time) I will exclude that one, and just tell you that it's been in SEVERAL graffiti magazines over the years, not limited to casual passes or ads, but full articles dedicated to the history, present, and future of 12ozprophet. Not only that, but has been in books, including but not limited to Also Known As. One of the best graffiti books to come out in recent years. So if being in several well known magazines, and books, not to mention PUBLISHING books, isn't notable then what is? Ask anyone within the community that we are in, and 12oz is not only the most well known site, but also the best run. Delete it if you want, me or someone I know will have a new one up the same day. -Grits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.195.76 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-28 20:01:40
    • If there are several, make sure they satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability (and by extension Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and put them in the article. (Note that print is fine—it doesn't have to be links.) Talking about them here without delivering the goods is meaningless. Also note that once the community has decided to delete an article, recreating it only results in it being deleted on-sight, so, no, there won't suddently be a new article if the decision is delete. (Mind, there is a process to request undeletion given new evidence of suitability, but recreating the article is not it.) — Saxifrage ✎ 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:WEB. A net income of $1.4billion... man I want a piece of that!--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit when I read the article, I laughed. It's funny, and in a way, it's accurate. We do discuss a lot of things on there- at times, I share anecodes about my life and am 100% aware of the fact that I am leaving myself open to all kinds of responses as a result of putting myself out there in the public eye. However, based on the guidelines of Wikipedia, it's not a good article. I interpret those guidelines to be something along the lines of neutrality and/or unbiased reporting, and it fails on both counts. I don't think it should be deleted, though. If anything, it should be allowed to remain, and edited by some of the moderators to include the history of the site (what was mentioned was cursory at best), what the policies of the forum are and how those policies came about, future plans for the site, its intended purpose, etc. I've been posting on the board for almost four years, and am still a little unclear on some of these points. Hope this helps. -shai hulud — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolCalmChris (talk • contribs) 2006-09-28 21:47:00 — CoolCalmChris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note - nomination removed from the log by 69.241.126.114 - Yomanganitalk 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to neutral: there are at least claims to notability sufficient for WP:WEB now. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- not only does it have a coprihensive archive of graffiti related topics, it is one of the most current archives out on the net, as people can continually add new information and photos. It can be viewed as a magazine, that has grown online and which continues to grow with up to date pictures, events, shows, information, stories and products etc. It is in a sense, the equivalent of Wikipedia but for the graffiti community all around the world. I dont even see what the big deal is with keeping it. Its not like the site needs exposure on here to get membership and interest. It is well known among those who are into this kind of thing, and having it on here merely recognizes the soceital shift into online information and on going growth of online communities, that were once non existant. It is not on here to advertise anything, and it is a documentation of an online resource for those in the graffiti community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUMOS (talk • contribs) — LUMOS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • This would be where a decent understanding of the point of Wikipedia would come in handy. We don't do original documentation, we only collect and reference existing documentation. Provide documentation that says all the things that you're arguing are true, and the article will likely stay. Don't provide documentation, and it will likely get deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me the nerds who continually come back here just to argue their point aren't going to listen anyway. I don't know where your Alexis rating gets your numbers, but it's nowhere near the 20million hits a month that the site is actually getting. I've already stated that it's been mentioned in several magazines, newspaper articles, and books. Not to mention, that it at one time WAS it's own graffiti magazine. I don't know how you expect me to reference this, since it's not online (there is a world outside of the internet, it uses paper) short of scanning it, and hosting it, and linking you to the picture. I've already surpased the terms of WP:WEB so why is there still an argument? -Grits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.195.76 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 04:12:24
    • You've already been asked to cite those magazines, newspaper articles, and books, and told that mere vague assertions that they exist are not enough. Uncle G 09:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria for WP:WEB: (representing a partial list ranging from the last 18 months)
    1. "Milk Magazine" Issue 267; August 2006
    2. "Lowdown Magazine" Issue 52; April 2006
    3. "Streetwear Today Magazine" Issue 14; March 2005
    4. "Print Magazine" Unsavory Characters, by Caleb Neelon; Jan/Feb 2006
    5. "Untitled - Documents of Street Culture" Andreas Hesse, Steven Vogel, Sven Fortmann, Katharina Kemmler, Martin Magielka, Henrik Kurschner, Akiko Watanabe; Published by Kark-Heinz Muller & Katharina Kemmler; 2006
    6. "Graffiti Brasil" by Lost Art, Caleb Neelon, Tristan Manco; Published by Thames & Hudson; 2005
    7. "Freight Train Graffiti" by Roger Gastman, Darin Rowland, Ian Sattler, Published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc.; 2006
    8. "Supreme Quality" by Roger Gastman; Published by Gingko Press; 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.35.7 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, as per list of verifiable reliable sources that assert it's notability.--duncan 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, 12oz prophet is an online community worthy of recognition, it is an asset to graffiti in these modern technological times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.171.13 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP "Wikipedia:Notability (web)

Criteria for web content

Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

Here are some, far from all, of the most recent publications that 12oz has been featured in:

"Milk Magazine" Issue 267; August 2006

"Lowdown Magazine" Issue 52; April 2006

"Streetwear Today Magazine" Issue 14; March 2005

"Print Magazine" Unsavory Characters, by Caleb Neelon; Jan/Feb 2006

"Untitled - Documents of Street Culture" Andreas Hesse, Steven Vogel, Sven Fortmann, Katharina Kemmler, Martin Magielka, Henrik Kurschner, Akiko Watanabe; Published by Kark-Heinz Muller & Katharina Kemmler; 2006

"Graffiti Brasil" by Lost Art, Caleb Neelon, Tristan Manco; Published by Thames & Hudson; 2005

"Freight Train Graffiti" by Roger Gastman, Darin Rowland, Ian Sattler, Published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc.; 2006

"Supreme Quality" by Roger Gastman; Published by Gingko Press; 2005

  • Keep, If you were to delete this Wiki, you would be denying a whole Sub-culture of recognition, and furthermore, if you really believe that the Wiki is needed for advertisment then maybe you should explore the posts on the threads to find someone who really cares as to whether or not people find this website or not, as you will be hardpressed to do so. Qwerty. 68.109.124.108 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If at all possible, could you provide some links to the articles, or provide information on the readership of some magazines? I say this because an article that talks entirely about graffiti and has one sentence on the website is not as important as an article devoted entirely to the website. --Wafulz 03:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I have been a member of the 12oz prophet community for 6 years now. This site contains relevant information on a sub-culture that countless thousands of people are a part of. I have learned from 120z., made friends., and read daily information on world happenings to this day.

75.39.157.222 23:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Mr. BojanglesUser's sole contribution --Wafulz 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As wonderful as this is, this doesn't address concerns about reliable, verifiable sources. --Wafulz 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant website in the graffiti subculture. Themindset 20:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've provided more than enough to meet WP:WEB. We've provided the names of magazines that have whole articles on either 12ozprophet, 4thw, or AKA. We're not going to provide links to the articles, because they are in PAPER form. Back before the internet, we used paper goods to distribute information. These are not ONLINE magazines. We've provided WAY more than we had to. And you're continuing this because you lost the argument and don't want to admit it. There sources are easily varifiable. Go out and buy one of any of those magazines, And that's just within the last 18 months. Being the first to feature the Os Gemeos twins, should be BEYOND enough notability. As if changing how people look at graff zines wasn't enough. Give this up man, we've provided more than enough info for you, the article is changed. Give it up. -Grits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.121.114.241 (talk • contribs) .
    Chill a bit. Relax. Edit some typos, do a little zen article-gardening. It's all cool: This isn't a vote that gets tallied numerically at the end. The arguments people make are what matters. Given evidence of notability, everyone who says (including myself, above) to delete for non-notability get ignored for being wrong when the final decision comes down. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, you know, pay attention. I just want to see the articles. I'm neutral to the discussion at this point. Also, if you hadn't noticed, I did a full copyedit of the article a few days ago because I felt it would be kept anyway. --Wafulz 04:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral my ass, all you've done is argue everything even with all your little articles met. Don't start bullshitting now.-grits— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.182.143 (talk • contribs)
    • Please be civil. I don't know what else I can say to you. I already struck out my opinion, and I went through a copyedit, and I did both of these well in advance of my comment. Provided I could get one excerpt or link I would change it to a keep right away- the same that I do with every other discussion like this. It won't matter to the closing admin because all arguments for deletion have been made obsolete at this point anyway. --Wafulz 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excerpt for you, Graffiti Brasil p.18. "McGee told 12 Oz Prophet magazine editor Alen Benedikt/Raven about the Brazilian scene, and in 1997 he and Sonik travelled to Sao Paulo to visit Os Gemeos. The resulting 1998 issue of 12 Oz Prophet introduced the Brazilian scene to graffiti writers throughout North America and Europe, which catapulted Sao Paulo to the top of many writers' destination wish lists." Issue 6 is listed in the book's bibliography. This excerpt gives us a reliable verified source that mentions 12 Oz. And the quote itself also affirms just how notable it is; it was read across North America and Europe, and had widespread influence in making Brazil a desirable destination. --duncan 07:03, 6 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. W.marsh 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek island affair[edit]

One big violation of WP:BLP. DRK 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It was indeed unreferenced, but I added a few links, so somebody could work them into the article. This was a notable scandal and not entirely resolved by the time of Sharon's stroke. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it reads now, it is not violation of WP:BLP as it just states that it was a scandal, with references to the scandal. Themindset 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's been salvaged. JASpencer 20:33, 4 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. (aeropagitica) 04:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sanctuary Zone[edit]

Sky Sanctuary Zone is a non-notable level from the Sonic the Hedgehog series and like most other levels, does not deserve its own article and should be deleted, or at least a redirect to Sonic & Knuckles. Sonic3KMaster(talk) 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Notice the article is mostly fictional recap. What could be written about this stage would fall under a game guide. Mitaphane talk 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dot dot dot. Danny Lilithborne 06:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no level in a video game needs a step-by-step commentary, serves no useful purpose to WP readers and probably little more to most die-hard Sonic fans. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or the world's own MySpace page. QuagmireDog 19:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not neutral (it has weasel words in it), there aren't any sources (and there aren't many third-party sources who would write about a single level in a game), and anything else written would be game guidish. ColourBurst 22:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge possible. W.marsh 01:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diabolical Tales[edit]

Page serves no purpose, all relevent information is on Diabolical Tales: Part I and Diabolical Tales: Part II. Mallanox 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd actually suggest that those two articles be merged to Diabolical Tales - I don't see any really good reason that two parts of a series of short films should be covered separately. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as per Zetawoof. —Scott5114↗ 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as the two articles are in fact quite short, and I do not see them becoming significantly longer. Themindset 19:49, 3 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.
  1. ^ Psychiatry On-Line Main Page
  2. ^ Gallagher, William (2003-05-30). "TV's strangest endings". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-07-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_28&oldid=1116878465"