Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy redirect to Amish Paradise, the correct spelling. — CharlotteWebb 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amish Paridise[edit]

Apparently a test article. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense, so tagged as such. User:Logical2u_Talk 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kopimi[edit]

I prodded this as non-notable, prod was contested, I thought I'd bring it here. Fair amount of google hits, nothing I see that's reliable. Article on Swedish WP is no better. Smells promotional Delete Aagtbdfoua 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN blog meme. 1250 hits on kopimi site:se (46,000 when you do -site:se, so it isn't just a svensk thing), but none that I can see meet WP:RS (there's one behind a paywall, ComputerSweden). Many of the hits are to social networking sites where it's used as a tag. Here's a semi-RS use of the related neologisms[1]. In short, fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only halfway decent link is the Online urban dictionary which shows no proof of nobility. It is also not a part of our article on The Pirate Bay. --Banana04131 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge and redirect to The Pirate Bay. --Dennisthe2 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with The Pirate Bay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -for now. It may be something new, so it could come back in the future. For now however, it is very unnotable. JackSparrow Ninja 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Seems non-notable at this time per WP:WEB. Ronbo76 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A kopimi is a logo used by some people on the Internet for a specific purpose. Furthermore, the term kopimistic, which is used on a site with a large public exposure, links to this article. Klassica 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not work on the principle of taking editors' sole words for things, nor is it the place for first documenting the undocumented. Please cite sources to show that this logo has already been properly documented outside of Wikipedia. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to prove that it is noteable. It links just to itself. Seems to fail [WP:WEB]] as only no noteable sites even seem to mention it. It is both a symbol and a new age term that fails WP:NEO.--Dacium 07:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: missing to much information to make a fair judgement. Meuh! Oh well next time source it. --CyclePat 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JCO312 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable on Wikipedia but could be moved to Wiktionary. Tellyaddict 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mkdw ^talk 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griefer[edit]

It's just lots and lots of original research. --Lijnema 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Research paper of griefing Although the three criteria are not so clearly displayed, an astute reader can identify all requirements. The paper does seem to suggest there are more but I believe that some are clearly condensed. It needed a some better external sources referenced. I've taken the liberty of supporting the information provided with the active policies of one of the top five biggest online gaming companies.
~~Weak Delete~~ The article is original reseearch but the term is a commonly used term among gamers. I would support if the article were changed to a stub with references and focused on what different companies do to try and get rid of "griefers". One such example is here. --Banana04131 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Support References have been added and this article need trimming and cleanup.--Banana04131 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Banana04131 -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of online-gaming slang. No need to merge, it's already there. It is a common term, but dictionary entries are covered by WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be a newer but notable slang term...but only in certain circles. I personally don't have a problem with it. The sources seem legit, and the term seems notable...but Wikipedia will survive without it. Gan fon 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of online-gaming slang. JackSparrow Ninja 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I don't think the nomination for this deletion is completly fair. There are "see also" sections which has some type of reference to the term itself. --CyclePat 07:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion.~~ There's plenty of information out there that can be used as a refrence such as this article on g4 the one on Microsoft's website this article on Escapist Magazine and this article from geek.com. Google yields many results for this you can find alot of information yourselves from this search. Surely, we can look beyond what we see as original research, and verify the information ourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseRobotRise (talk • contribs).
- Comment: Original research is absolutely a valid sole reason for deleting an article. But that's not the problem here. The problem here is that this term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but rather a dictionary. --Lee Vonce 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree, an article has to provide sources. Just look at the three "criteria", where did they come from? Google says that they're not to be found anywhere else. I really think the article needs to be deleted or completely brought down to a stub. I'm not contesting the existance of the term, it's all the original research I'm not liking, and original research is a reason to nominate an article for deletion as per the deletion policy. --Lijnema 10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Starblind. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A distinction should be made between articles having original reaserch and being original reaserch. This article has a number of citations that source a number of its statements; and, as just shown by RiseRobotRise, the potential for more citations exists. The article admittedly needs trimming to remove OR, but it needs fixing, not deletion. -Toptomcat 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent: The referencing is far from being wiki featured article status. All there is, is "see also" section at the bottom. A quick glance at those "reference" appear to be extremely relevant and have most of the information from this article. The problem I believe that Lijnema brings, I believe is not that the Article should be delete because of Original Research because he hasn't take the time to verify the information. And who would... it's a mess non-properly referenced , as per WP:REF material. Hence I understand the nomination. I however, do not accept it, as I previously voted keep. That means I believe that with a little work, a party of interest to the article should add the references. I think AfD should have to categories of deletion. I don't think the article should be deleted but, if you follow WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:V all these rules are interlinked and hence if one is violated they may all be violated. I personnaly believe the problem is WP:CITE and not, as per the nomination, WP:OR. --CyclePat 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the well thought out explanation of Toptomcat. JCO312 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Starblind. Not notable enough on its own, it fits in better as part of a list.--Scimitar 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per Ganfon Raitchison 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-noteworthy neologism. If it belongs anywere, it should be in some dictionary of computer slang terms. Perhaps some brief mention of the term in a larger article about online gaming might be warranted but not as a stand-along article. --Lee Vonce 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to have references. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see several references kicking around in there that indicate this term has been out there, and it appears to be more than just a dicdef thanks to some of the historical bits. But, I'm torn as to whether it's really notable on its own. Weak delete and redirect is about the best I can come up with. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it appears to fall under WP:NEO, its a word that has been covered by the public media: LA Times, Toronto Star, etc. See references section. It's also mentioned in Blizzard Entertainment's End User Agreement, the largest subscribed to MMORPG to-date. Mkdw ^talk 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it may be a neologism... its a neologism thats been used by numerous media sources. The potential for referencing exists. When there is a potential, reference it ... dont delete it! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Too neologism-ish for me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be neologism by hard and fast criteria, but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia allows things to be documented more quickly than an encyclopedia. This means that neologism is likely to creep in. That said, 'griefer' and 'griefing' are important terms used in the context of virtual worlds, just as much as troll is used on the internet. Troll is as much of a neologism as Griefer. If we delete griefer, lets delete troll too. And while everyone is tagging everything for deletion, I wonder if we shouldn't have people wandering around tagging things to be kept. ;-)--TaranRampersad 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bananaman. - Ocatecir 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please. The recent incident on Second Life involving Anshe Chung being attacked by griefers was reported on internationally. We need this article. dreddnott 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"'Keep'" it's is extremely useful. --Slagathor 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may be a neologism, but it's a notable neologism with plenty of sources out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable neoligism. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable and well-cited. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artice is very useful to me and I'm linking to it from my website for all the players of my game server to know what's against the rules. If you are going to merge it in the page with the list of slang, make sure that there is griefing and not only griefer. I still suggest to keep this page since it describe even better the actions that are considered griefing, for example in my game server we have this list: Leeching, Kill Stealing, Teamkilling, Stealing dropped items, Spawncamping, Suiciding. In short terms saying that griefing is forbidden is easy to make sure that you cover any lame action that a player could do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.54.88.8 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thor's Hammer (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Cynicism addict 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is this a speedy? --Banana04131 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep Very nice rewrite and assertion of notability. --Banana04131 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and it sure looks like a speedy to me, as I don't see an assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to Weak keep per edits. English wouldn't hurt, but I can work with it now. Thanks for changing my mind. --Dennisthe2 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Declined speedy deletion; the blue-link to a musician with an article is an assertion of notability by WP:MUSIC standards, which are more generous than my personal standards. GRBerry 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Ah, missed that part. OK. This still doesn't seem notable enough for an article, and should perhaps be redirected to Björgvin Halldórsson per WP:MUSIC. Heimstern Läufer 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This appears to be the same band that released Umbarumbamba, which is somewhat legendary among music collectors. I'll do some research and see what I can do to improve the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find two sources, one unreliable but confirming the prior opinion and one that looks reliable and would be enough for me, given our systemic bias toward recentism and the difficulty of finding 1960s sources online.
1. This source would tend to confirm Starblind's opinon, but I think it fails WP:RS.
2. This source looks to me to be more reliable enough; and if someone proved it was in fact in the 2002 Sunday times that would be enough for me even with no other sources found during the AFD. GRBerry 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One noteable member does not mean the group becomes noteable.--155.144.251.120 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note their All Music Guide entry begins with "Thor's Hammer was the most notable '60s Icelandic rock band." I would think that being the most notable band in an entire country for a decade would pass any reasonable person's interpretation of WP:MUSIC, but I'm open to hearing other opinions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up By now I've given the article a complete rewrite (only the member list is leftover from the original), and plan on expanding it further tomorrow. In addition to the AMG entry I've found what looks to be a fairly extensive bio. It would be very helpful to me in expanding the article, but I don't read Icelandic... perhaps someone else does? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to changes by starblind. Please remove not noteable deletes if as it is now sourced noteable.--Dacium 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per demonstrated rarity value of recordings. Catchpole 08:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nice work, Starblind. -Toptomcat 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catchpoles comment. JCO312
Strong Keep - is surely a noteable band. Neonblak 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent rewrite.--Scimitar 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to have no relevance. Tellyaddict 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming WP:RS (I don't speak icelandic). /Blaxthos 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article has zero references, but assuming good faith that the information isnt falsified to change this AfD, I vote Keep for notability. Mkdw ^talk 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if we need more sources we can check the informative booklet accompanying the Nuggets, Vol. 2 box set released by Rhino Records (part of Warner Music Group, one of the major labels), which includes a track by this band. I will do this when I get home tonight. Andrew Levine 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the sources get up to snuff anytime soon. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I would like to see better citing format (preferably inline). TonyTheTiger 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom FirefoxMan 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Këëp Article asserts multiple recordings released on Parlophone, which means WP:MUSIC is satisfied. JChap2007 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A notable, classic band. The article might now actually fit WP:BAND. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garden real estate[edit]

Please keep in mind while reading this that I can always be swayed in my opinions. This article does not site its sources (WP:V). It reads close to the edge of an advert, and I suspect it may have been planted to support a company. From looking at the first couple pages of ghits, of which there are many, it looks like they aren't for this exact phrase, they're for some combination of "home and garden" and "real estate". I suspect that "Garden real estate" may be a non-notable neologism. Delete. If someone can make this into a real sourced article which makes sense, I'm always willing to rescind my nomination. Mak (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't read like an advert, and certainly doesn't seem to be promoting a company - but it looks a whole lot like an essay. --Dennisthe2 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let us not be coy.This is an out-and-out blatant essay. Exterminate.--Anthony.bradbury 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though content disputes are usually not AfD material it does not strike me as encyclopedic in tone at all. Seems like a lot of OR in my opinion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of anything to indicate that this is actually a notable subset of real estate. JCO312 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like OR, no sources listed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an essay. Honbicot 22:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RFerreira 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Neopets[edit]

Tumor filled with original research such as "One bird-like petpet resembles the character Fobs from The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin." Completely fails at WP:V; we have no assurance that this article isn't a complete lie or that editors aren't grasping at straws. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be fair, many of the references do look legitimate, e.g., "All your 404 are belong to us" is certainly a reference to All your base, and many of the other quotes are obviously also references. That said, the article at the very least needs to cite all the messages to demonstrate that they actually exist in Neopets, and only those that are clearly references ought to be included. One could also argue that this is cruft. Neutral. Heimstern Läufer 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to prove your assertions of "clear references" with actual sources. Your opinion doesn't quite cut it, no matter how "obvious" you believe it to be. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to be so adamant. I have no real opinion about the merits of this article, I'm just putting out ideas to be considered. Heimstern Läufer 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Things that can be easily verified by a person without special knowledge do not need citation. I think many of these fall into that category. (That said, this article is way too specialized to be encyclopedic, so delete.) — brighterorange (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is unmaintainable, and runs afoul of this guideline in WP:NOT, which dictates that we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. There also lies the question of notability beyond the realms of Neopets - and while these are unquestionably interesting to an extent, is it really notable outside of Neopets? --Dennisthe2 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this notable outside of Neopets? No, not a chance. Anyone wanting to keep this should transwiki somewhere else ([2]). --- RockMFR 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most quotes cannot be proven to be unique to that game and obviously most of them do not originate with the game.--155.144.251.120 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ultimately this is the kind of article that will always be original research, because there's almost no chance that there's a source that indicates 1) that the lines are in the game, and 2) what they are in reference to. An editor has to make a guess as to what pop culture reference is involved, often a fairly obvious guess, but it's still the editor whose doing it. JCO312 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Popculturetrivialreferencecruft Bwithh 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. /Blaxthos 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a pity to see such a large amount of work deleted that is also somewhat interesting. However, it should be deleted per WP:OR. Mkdw ^talk 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki.... Philippe Beaudette 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki - not meant for Wikipedia. Sure, some of the references are obvious, but they still aren't sourced and are tainted with OR. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, Wikipedians create the darndest articles. Except this one is full of WP:OR. Delete, then burn it with fiar. Axem Titanium 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with above. Squids and Chips 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please no! *gets on soapbox* You guys may say that it is obvious guesses, but I recognize ALOT of them, and have seen many too ON THE SITE. We could show you exactly where the references occur, if you want, but if other people who actually PLAY the game saw this they would tell you this page is hilarious. For instance, I remember the "there is no jelly, only zuul," one, that happened a little while ago. I'm sure if you all want it "validated" then you could, I'm sure someone is willing to. We'll get the Neopets Team people over here to check it out...it is so funny, you just don't really get the point because you guys have probably never actually played. I have looked through the what-is-and-is-not-allowed list thing and I don't see why you should delete it, because this stuff isn't speculation (well maybe a bit of it) and think about it, we all have biases, especially for a website that has toys sold to mcdonalds, (except that little kids wouldn't recognize a quote from most of this, so it's obviously adults and teenagers who would see this anyway) and you wouldn't appreciate it like users would (who are not little kids). The Neopets Team often says funny things, and it is very cool that somebody actually made a list of them all. *gets off soap box* ok, you may ignore my ranting and go on with your buisiness now. 0:27, 21 January 2007

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

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

The result was Obvious delete, tagged as probable copyvio, hoax (i.e. vandalism) and WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poison the Hedgehog[edit]

PROD contested by page author. PROD reason was "No relevant google hits for "Poison the hedgehog"; probable hoax". I endorse the prod reason; see my opinion. Hoaxes aren't eligible for speedy deletion or I'd do it instead of this. GRBerry 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One google hit, when Wikipedia is excluded, is clearly not video game related. [3]. Hoaxes should be deleted. GRBerry 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost certainly a hoax, and unverified at any rate. Heimstern Läufer 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noteable fan-made character. --FlareNUKE 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly a fanfic character, else hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax, only google hit is irrelevant. Exarion 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 99% sure it is a hoax. Not only is there no evidence of his existence on the page, but as a fan of the series, I know very sure he is not real, or at least not official. JackSparrow Ninja 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the one that prodded it. Video game stuff, if real, gets tons of ghits, even obscure people you only talk to once. Dave6 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon the grounds of being a non-notable fanfic character, cruft, copyvio, and lacking substantial enough notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft that completely and utterly fails the search engine test. Metrackle 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Dave6 --Arctic Gnome 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced fanfic, and fanfic characters are rarely worthy of an article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want to poison a hedgehog? They're so cute! Oh, wait. Um... Fan character, looks like, no sources... okay, yeah, get the arsenic. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without expressing an opinion on the cuteness of hedgehogs. JCO312 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a prank article. Besides, faux hoax hedgehogs look cutest when they've been plastered by the tyre of a Morris Minor. Tubezone 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Gravity^Talk 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comforting Those In Mourning[edit]

Wikipedia is not meant to hold FAQs or instruction manuals. ReyBrujo 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Raeven0 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhether this comforts those of the Jewish faith who are bereaved I know not; I hope it does, but that does not make it encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAQ. Looks like a cut and paste job too. Somebody remember to console the author when this article gets killed. Wavy G 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a manual.--155.144.251.120 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --John24601 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but note that there may be some information here of value which might be more properly added to Shiva (Judaism). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philippe Beaudette 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. JCO312 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand what it's talking about, but most other people aren't part of that language or culture. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.60 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, or integrate Proposal for new Artical: SHIVA, outline all that it entails... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.44.93.71 (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 Keep. Seraphimblade 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zariski surface[edit]

This page was originally authored by Dr. Piotr Blass who has recently been banned from Wikipedia due to his exhaustion of the community's patience with his repeated creations of his vanity autobiography and abuse of the courtesy blanking performed on his autobiography's first AfD to just continue to make his biography over ten unique times. However, this is not the entire reason that this article is being deleted.

The only resources for this article are books and articles by Dr. Blass himself, and one by the individual this manifold is named after. If one does a Google Search and has it so any pages containing either "Piotr" or "Blass" show up, Google gives 374 "unique" pages of which Oscar Zariski's article shows up on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Compounded by the fact that Dr. Blass has used the page to promote his original research and had plastered his name all over it, until JzG got rid of nearly all mentions of him, this article should be deleted as an unimportant geometric figure with no reliable sources that do not promote the primary author of the article (R.e.b. was the originator, but Dr. Blass has taken a stranglehold on this article).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Question. You say it has "no reliable sources that do not promote the primary author of the article". Ignoring the author entirely for a moment, are the sources themselves reliable or not? --tjstrf talk 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, my question has been answered. Blass may be a self-promoting jerk, but that's not a deletion criterion and it sounds like we still have our sources. --tjstrf talk 02:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article's problematic history or attractiveness to a now-banned editor are not good deletion rationales if the underlying content is sound or there is good material that can be added. (After all, we are dealing here with an abstract mathematical concept, not a living person biography.) It would be good to have input from the mathematics contributors as to whether this is a valid concept, appropriately described, and using reasonably common terminology. There are several links to this article from others which suggest that the answer might be yes, but I am not knowledgeable enough to say. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know know if the sources themselves are reliable or not. What I do know is that Dr. Blass used this article to continue to publish his ideas. Of the resources, only one has an ISBN number, and it is not cited. I do realize that this is an extremely abstract concept, and that the fact that Dr. Blass is now banned is not a deletion criterion. I have contacted WikiProject Mathematics about this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not my field of mathematics, but the question is, is the term Zariski surface really used for this concept (by someone other than Dr. Blass and his students). If so, we should have some article here, even if it turns out only to be a stub because none of us know the appropriate references. If not,.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of MathSciNet found 26 papers or paper reviews containing the phrase "Zariski surface", with authors Masuyaki Hirokado, Joseph Blass, Piotr Blass, Jeff Lang, Tim Ford, Angie Grant, Toshiyuki Katsura, Torsten Ekedahl, Raymond Hoobler, Masayoshi Miyanishi, Peter Russell, James Deveney, John Mordesen, Marc Levine, Richard Randell, and William Lang. That many legit mathematical publications and that many different authors (despite many being related by coauthorship to Blass) seems well above threshhold for a mathematical WP article to me. —David Eppstein 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I looked through MathSciNet too, but I couldn't find any articles with the words "Zariski surface" in an article that wasn't written by Blass or one of his co-authors. I'm also not a geometer either so I don't recognize the description as having a name different from "Zariski surface". Lunch 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:AN#Piotr_Blass and the shortage of non-Blass-related references I consider this a well-judged nomination. I am unqualified to evaluate the significance of mathematics-related articles and have no opinion on the outcome, yet a discussion of whether to delete this article is very apt. I was the administrator who performed the actual banning of Dr. Blass and his sockpuppets. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's obvious that a decent number (> 10) of the 26 papers mentioned by David Eppstein are in perfectly respectable journals, e.g. Duke, Compositio, Proc. AMS, etc. Thus the concept should be considered valid for Wikipedia purposes. The only issue here is on the title. But generally we don't delete valid content just because we suspect the title may not be appropriate. We try to find a better one and then move it to that. Unless evidence is shown that indicates that there is another more popular name for "Zariski surface", I see no reason why this concept should not only have an article but live at its current title. The reliable sources we have so far suggest that is the name. The fact that many of these authors are related to Blass somehow is not important (with only several actually being his students), as they are perfectly respectable researchers. I would expect this kind of thing to happen for a niche topic. Incidentally, Marat Gizatullin mentions in his review MR0546289, that "here we are using P. Blass's suggestion to call a surface $X$ a Zariski surface if $X$ is birationally equivalent to a hypersurface in $A^3$ defined by an irreducible equation of the form $z^p-f(x,y)=0$ [see Blass, "Zariski surfaces", Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977]". This strongly suggests to me that there was no widely accepted name for this until Blass proposed "Zariski surface". --C S (Talk) 04:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Chan-Ho. Although I cannot follow the mathematical journal articles, this appears to be a topic of minor but genuine importance. The article should be carefully policed for WP:COI intrusion in the future, which should be easier with the recent ban. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep A named scientific contribution of this sort referred to by multiple other mathematicians is unquestionably notable by our standards. Whatever we think of the circumstances. DGG 07:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per David. Article existed long before Blass started contribution. It does require some cleanup with quite a few references need filling in. --Salix alba (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept is useful, but the article itself is not well-written. It almost looks like a series of abstracts from two or three different papers all jumbled together. DavidCBryant 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The attempt to delete this article seems to motivated entirely by personal considerations rather than any discussion of the merit of the article itself. Whatever personal conflicts Dr. Blass may have with the admins here should be kept out of the discussion. --Lee Vonce 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfair. The problem here is that the major source for this is known to be a serial and prolific creator of vanity articles (not just on himself). He has inserted his name and links to his website into numerous other articles. Since the only source we had for the significance of this subject is one whose judgement on the significance of his own endeavours has proven to be exceptionally unreliable, it is valid to ask whether this is in fact a notable mathematical concept outside of its (very few) proponents. That question remains unanswered. How many secondary sources exist for this? Is it included in standard texts at undergraduate level? Guy (Help!) 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The journal sources show that "Zariski surface" as an actual topic in mathematical research. Whether it is included in an undergraduate text is irrelevant, as that is not how we judge whether a mathematics article should be deleted. I can understand the situation has been confused by Blass' actions, but really...the situation is simple enough, I wonder what the problem is. If this were any other mathematics article whose topic was the main subject of a dozen papers in well-respected mathematical journals, it would be an automatic keep by many non-mathematical editors. --C S (Talk) 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry guys, hate to be the lone dissenting voice, but this article is promoting original research. It's unforuntate that often times Wikieditors are asked to voice opinions on conceps we have little experience with, which makes it truely difficult to sift what's accepted in the applicable community from what is being promoted as a new construct or theory. Google hits shouldn't be completely trusted, as it appears everything we find originates from the same source (who was, incidentally, banned). /Blaxthos 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As material on Zariski surface has been published in reliable sources, i.e. respectable math journals, it is not, in fact, "original research" in Wikipedia's sense. I don't understand why you bring up Google, as nobody advocating "keep" has mentioned Google at all. Perhaps you are confused by the mention of MathSciNet. --C S (Talk) 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I think the main issue here is that the articles on MathSciNet are still all connected to Dr. Blass and his research on the manifold. While I do not own a subscription (and I don't know that as a student at UM that I have access to MathSciNet/I don't remember my library PIN), these results still show an avid connection to Blass' research, which we do not have knowledge of peer reviews.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Google was mentioned in the nomination.) Lunch 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is this a "main issue"? People are frequently "connected" like this for niche topics. As for peer review, actually we do have quite a bit of knowledge of what is peer-reviewed or not. If you have any doubts as to say, whether the Duke Mathematical Journal, is peer-reviewed (because of MR0650373), just ask! --C S (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - {Is a biology student) The reason I listed it for AFD was to see if there were sources that could be utilized that have been peer reviewed and utilized for the article, and it was not just Dr. Blass publishing his research.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you think this article is worth keeping because Blass (and coauthors) have published a few papers in reputable journals, did you also vote to keep the article on transreal numbers? I could see someone arguing either way. Anderson has had only one or two coauthors and has only published a handful of papers in journals. (He has self-published a lot more, but for the moment let's ignore that.) Blass, on the other hand, has had about 10 coauthors and has published a couple dozen articles in journals. Some of his coauthors have gone on to publish independently of Blass --- but still are, in a sense, his collaborators and aren't "independent". Where does one draw the line? Lunch 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm very surprised that you would bring this up. You were one of the people that mentioned in the transreal AFD discussion that Anderson's publications on transreal numbers were not peer-reviewed. Anderson basically had a couple papers in some conference proceedings that were not reviewed. I based my "delete" on that. The major difference here is that Blass and the other authors have published in well-known peer-reviewed journals. Not to mention that they are actually mathematical journals versus whatever it was that Anderson published in. --C S (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, at the time I thought the proceedings where Anderson published were not reviewed. I was incorrect. The standards for that particular proceedings journal are different; his (few) articles were reviewed. The proceedings were also tangentially computer science related.
  - For the record, if it were my choice, I'd keep the article (this one on the Zariski surface). But I could see someone wanting to delete it. Lunch 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My understanding of the wiki process is that, if I invent (or research or discover) the magnificent Foo, I am essentially disqualified from writing the wikipedia article on Foo. The proper writers are other wikipedians, and the proper sources needs to be journals on Foo, newspaper articles on Foo, and government surveys sampling the economic impact of Foo on homeless beagles. The three sources on this page listed are by Zariski and Blass, and I'm guessing that Blass made significant contributions to the realm of knowledge -- which means neither of them are good sources, and neither of them need to be the wikipedian writing this article. Ideally, someone who understands such things should gather some information from reliable, secondary sources, and that person should write this article. (It won't be me; I didn't comprehend the first sentence.) Anyone want to correct my perception of how things should work? I do not have absolute faith in it. Deltopia 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite right. If you invented the magnificent Foo, it's perfectly okay for you to write about it, assuming your writing is based on published sources. Other editors may question the notability of Foo, or whether the article is NPOV, though. In particular, WP:COI says: "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." --Sopoforic 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chan-Ho and others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original short form of the article seems to have been quite satisfactory. I suggest retaining just the current introduction and references, which are adequate for cross-links from other wikipedia articles such as List of algebraic surfaces. Mathsci 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its been published multiple times in reputable peer-reviewed journals then it doesn't matter if all the articles have a common author (plus many other co-authors). This pattern of authorship is fairly common in new and specialized work. AmitDeshwar 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The theory is legit, even if I'm not fond of the author. Philippe Beaudette 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the theory has been published in a reputable journal beyond the control of the author, I'm not sure how it could still be called original research. JCO312 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it has been published in reliable sources, it does nat matter in the least that the author has been banned from Wikipedia. There is no "nice guy" requirement for scientificor mathematical theoories. Edison 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Zariski seems to have been a real mathematician. There also appears to be an article for Zariski topology and the literature points to the existance of a Riemann-Zariski surface, which may be the same as a Riemann surface. An expert needs to go through and figure out if these are not all the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infrangible (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Not the same thing as the Riemann-Zariski surface; introduced by Blass (presumably by analogy). The first paper at a search for Zariski surface (WE Lang 1984) says:

Remark: The motivating examples to which our theorem applies are the generic Zariski surfaces introduced by P. Blass in [two preprints] Blass uses the phrase "generic Zariski surface in two different senses in these two papers, but in both case it refers to the non-singular model of a weighted hypersurface with only rational double points, to which our theorem applies.

The next result (Favre, Johanssen 2005) cites "what is now called the Riemann-Zariski surface" as from Zariski, O.: The compactness of the Riemann manifold of an abstract field of algebraic functions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 50, 683–691 (1944)

So there's a preexisting concept, and Blass's generalizations; all used by other people. Neither can be simply Riemann surfaces, known well before 1944. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On ISI Citation search the 1987 monograph by Blass & Lang got three cites, if I include other Blass articles that refer to Zabriski surfaces I get about six. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a speedy keep. Zariski was one of the greats of 20th century mathematics; this isn't about the Riemann-Zariski surface at all, but a special class of surfaces Zariski discovered. Zariski surfaces are entirely notable in algebraic geometry. User:R.e.b. is a mathematician of such distinction that there should be no question of deletion. Charles Matthews 21:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (it's a little too late for "speedy") per Charles Matthews. Newyorkbrad 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Chan Ho. Paul August ☎ 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the erroneous belief that Piotr Blass is the initial author of this article the only point against it, or is there something else? Michael Hardy 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not exactly. If Blass and his students are the only ones using that name for the concept, the article shouldn't be here under that name, nor should there be a redirect at that name. I believe the concept to be notable, which Blass's papers in peer-reviewed journals give credence, but I'm not convinced that the name is actually used by wotking mathemeaticians other than Blass and his students. (It's not my field of mathematics, nor do I personally know an algebraic geometer I could ask.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment. Is there a good reason Zariski didn't himself name these objects 'Zariski surfaces'? Yes! Doesn't mean that the concept is less worthy of inclusion. Charles Matthews 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe someone could leave a message on r.e.b.'s talk page and ask him if he knows. Lunch 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that User:R.e.b. created the article under this name, presumably he believes it's an accurate name. I would support asking him to go through the article and delete anything that might have been inserted that's incorrect or OR, however. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why this article title should not be used if it's the one generally used by mathematicians who publish in this area. If some other name were in general use, then you'd have a point. Michael Hardy 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — even a stopped clock is right twice a day; Zariski and his work is worthy even if Blass is a community-banned waste of electrons. ➥the Epopt 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact (if it is a fact---I haven't checked) that Piotr Blass is banned would seem to mean he cannot now edit this article in any way that would be abusive. Therefore no such danger can be a reason to delete the article. Michael Hardy 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate work. Reliable sources exist. | Noticket 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a pretty esoteric page for such a new user to contribute to. Is there something in particular that drew you to this discussion? Are there references that you can help add to the article? Have you edited before under a different user name? Thanks. Lunch 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chan-Ho. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since apparently the POV text can be fixed and nothing else to argue the deletion from. Which cat would this nom be now? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for It[edit]

No info on page, other Hole songs don't have own articles (unless they were a single) FlareNUKE 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable.Hank Ramsey 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close No assertion of notability. Redirected to Ask for It per WP:SONG and WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Ask for It, despite having a similar name, is not included in that album's soundtrack. You also can't close afds like that or remove the afd tag. --FlareNUKE 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Song not sufficiently notable for own article. Merge any useful info to article about the album. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song itself has notability and does not need its own article. Mkdw ^talk 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. Philippe Beaudette 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I know very little about this topic, but the presence of background vocals by Kurt Cobain may be enough to make this notable. JCO312 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination ForrestLane42 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Paul[edit]

Only marginally notable. Subject considers himself non-notable and requested the page be listed for deletion. juli. ^{t ?} 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not noteable. BSD has several hundred repeat coders.--155.144.251.120 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I just don't how Bill qualifies as a "repeat coder". He wrote almost every other Ethernet device driver that is available in FreeBSD and other *BSD systems. Check AUTHORS or HISTORY sections of manual pages returned by apropos ethernet. Bill also started Project Evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MureninC (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Not noteable as above. --Dacium 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as mentioned. Gan fon 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO Mkdw ^talk 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO comment How so? I strongly disagree. First, it qualifies for the "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." rule specified in WP:BIO -- Bill wrote many Ethernet device drivers directly from hardware datasheets, and these drivers are now part of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc. Second, the article passes the Verifiability test. Third, I was the original author of the article, and I've never met Bill Paul in person, nor have I ever communicated with him online -- so it passes the Biography test as well. MureninC 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Philippe Beaudette 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. JCO312 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Bill Paul wrote almost every Ethernet device driver on FreeBSD, and is a legendary figure. MureninC 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoever calculates the votes, please notice that most delete votes here are "me too" votes, and all people who voted to delete the article do not seem to have bothered to actually read it. Because if they did read it, they would have found that Bill wrote major component of the FreeBSD operating system -- namely around every other Ethernet device driver. I didn't specifically check, but I won't be surprised at all if every single device driver he wrote for FreeBSD was quickly ported to OpenBSD and NetBSD. I also added information about him having started the Project Evil to this article. Moreover, I took some time to contact him personally, and he told me that originally he did want the article to be deleted due to the "infantile humor of certain members of the FreeBSD community", but he also told me that "at this point" he doesn't "really care one way or the other". I do care, however. MureninC 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Bill Paul is widely known within the BSD communities and somewhat so in the larger FOSS community, and his contributions are large within the field of BSD Ethernet drivers (as the man pages testify). However, I can find very little other published work, and even very little general content about him (interviews, reports/articles about his work). A borderline case. NicM 12:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Some people write code (Bill Paul), others give interviews (ESR), some others try to do both. People take Bill's work for granted — in fact, I'd say he created this society of people that (rightly) assume that whatever Ethernet chip they have, there is a driver for it in *BSD, and no third-party patches are necessary to make it work. And the fact that we take it for granted now, doesn't diminish Bill's accomplishments, it only amplifies them. I still honestly fail to see how this could possibly be a borderline case as far as wikipedia rules or just common sense are concerned — count the number of FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc files that bear Bill's copyright, and remember that he only contributed to FreeBSD — i.e. files in OpenBSD etc could well qualify as "articles about his work" part of the rules. And to my understanding, Bill is (practically) the only FreeBSD person that is individually acknowledged and highly respected by NetBSD co-founder and OpenBSD founder and project-leader Theo de Raadt (see Theo's 2001 kerneltrap interview). MureninC 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that, but the lack of information doesn't improve his notability. He is a borderline case because: although he has contributed a lot to it, the community in which he is well-known is relatively small; he isn't a major figure outside that community; he isn't widely read or published or written about. Nobody is taking him for granted, I have a lot of respect for Bill Paul and his work and I think he is barely notable enough, but the fact is that IMO people who are solely *BSD developers have to have to be really significant—and not just within their community—to be notable enough. Can you really come up with enough relevent material to expand the article to the length of, eg, Theo de Raadt or Linus Torvalds (I couldn't)? NicM 07:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The purported Project Evil article implies that it is a version of the Linux ndiswrapper project, when it was an independent work that evolved orthogonally. I recall vague discussion that some Project Evil code made its way into one of the Linux projects, but I don't recall for sure. Bill is very, very widely respected. He has not, however, published a lot of work or written books, like other BSD hackers of similar background who have articles about them (Kirk McKusick, Sam Leffler, Poul-Henning Kamp). I don't mean to be unfair, but it seems like one person has taken to adoring Bill and thinks there should be an article about him, and has created it with minimal content. There is, in fact, little non-OR information to add beyond what is there. Bill is a private person and doesn't have a large public persona or even a publishing history from which to draw even a trivial biography. He also actively objects to this article existing, but that isn't really a good reason to delete it, in and of itself. --juli. ^{t ?} 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However, Bill is and was listed in the ‘Notable developers’ section of the FreeBSD article, and there are also some references to his persona from some other articles on the networking theme — he completes the picture. Moreover, consider that most articles describing programmers on wikipedia are rather small, so deleting this article only because of its size doesn't sound right, specifically as it has some relevant description of the subject's contribution to *BSD, all taken from reliable sources. MureninC 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Sporn[edit]

The article fails WP:BIO (it might have passed if the significance of U-439 was noted). Also, the article has been tagged since August 2006 for not stating the notability of the subject, but hasn't received any non-technical edits (i.e., the notability tag and a bot edit) since July 7, 2006, and seems unlikely to be expanded. Black Falcon 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article provides no indication of notability or historical importance of this person. Agent 86 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notibility is his rank, of which many thousands of people had. Collided with another friendly ship in an unnotable accident. Neither ship appears to have been used in any noteable attacks.--155.144.251.120 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" U-439 could be notable because it did not loose any personnel during her first patrols which, contrary to the myth, was quite uncommon but that does not automatically include the skipper Alf photoman 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no importance asserted distinguishing him from other Nazi officers of his rank. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, I think it qualifies for speedy deletion under A7 (I'm quoting the section of the speedy deletion guidelines from memory, so that might be off) JCO312 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged with Alex Etel. NawlinWiki 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nathan Etel[edit]

This is pretty much a newly created duplicate of the long-standing article on UK child actor Alex Etel. Suggest replacing with a redirect to Alex Etel, -- Arwel (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close, Merge & Redirect - Redirects for name changes do not require an AfD Discussion -- wtfunkymonkey 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I am not familiar enough on the AfD closing process to do it myself, but the articles have been merged/redirected to one another, and the AFD has been removed. wtfunkymonkey 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom and wtfunkymonkey.

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent 'Vinnie' Gognitti[edit]

Merge or Delete This character does not deserve it's own article; though he is featured in both games as, perhaps, a minor character, he isn't nearly important enough; merge into the "Max Payne" characters article or delete the whole page. Klptyzm 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely doesn't deserve its own article. I'm doubtful about merging because the Max Payne 2 article contains a list of characters which pretty much covers this. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a plain vote; cite a reason. Klptyzm 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a character in the Max Payne video games, applying WP:FICTION, he is already sufficiently described in the main articles, so nothing to merge, thus delete. -- Whpq 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:FICT only a major character should have its own page it needed. Minor characters like this should be in the parent article about the series, or an article for description of all characters in the series. Note noteable enough to be considered anything but a minor character.--155.144.251.120 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to list. if Joachim Mizrahi (from Xenosagas) doesn't get an article page (he used to), then no. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish-American mobsters[edit]

unreferences listcruft delete Cornell Rockey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination reason is rather poor, list of mobsters is useful because you can't go dirrectly to any if you don't know there names. There are many articles like this, don't think nominator even knows this: List of godfathers, List of Italian-American mobsters, List of Irish-American mobsters, List of Jewish-American mobsters, List of British mobsters. Needs strategy worked out before we just delete them all.--155.144.251.120 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that to single out the Irish for deletion is prejudicial. There should be an overall soultution, but there should be referencing at all of the mobster pages. --Kevin Murray 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm completely open to nominating all these pages. I singled out an example, knowing there was a larger problem here. All these lists are indiscriminate, unsourced and partial > all of which are bad for an encyclopedia. Cornell Rockey 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Personally, I feel the lists are helpful especially to those editors involved in organized crime related articles. There are both pros and cons to lists vs. categories and I believe a reader or editor should be allowed the right to an alternative. However, among the various organized crime related lists (see 1) and categories (see 1/2) proposed for deletion, this specific list has previously been nominated and kept. If you feel the main issue is a lack of references, then a reference tag should be placed rather then then nominating it for deletion. MadMax 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is manifestly useful, it just needs somewhat better referencing. -Toptomcat 13:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a list. Also, who decides how to use the pejorative term "mobster"? How could this article ever be anything more than original research? Prejudicial and unreferenced, no matter how useful one may find it -- usefulness doesn't warrant inclusion. As with most lists, maybe this could work as a category (but I doubt it). /Blaxthos 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you have a general objection to all lists, ever? -Toptomcat 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references could easily be provided, there are books [4] on the subject. So, I don't see that as an especially large problem. Get back to me if you can articulate a better objection. Cruft is not one o them. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list with a good scope, offers additional information beyond a mere list. I reject the arguments of the nomination. Unreferenced is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above of course Jcuk 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a list. This is covered all over the place. Philippe Beaudette 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, for example, FrozenPurpleCube. Note WP:LIST; there are good reasons to have lists in Wikipedia, and this list either fulfills these reasons, or has strong potential to, after some cleanup and better annotation/different sorting, fulfill them. schi ^talk 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. ShivaDaDestroyer 00:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, indiscriminate list biased with regard to ethnicity. What's the point to this list? With no references, who decides what names get added here? Further, it shouldn't be in article space at all. At best, this would be a WikiProject. -- Kesh 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the list is hardly indiscriminate. Certainly prominant mobsters such as Dion O'Banion, Vincent Coll, Danny Greene, Whitey Bulger, etc. are clearly organized crime figures. Granted the article may need additional references although it dosen't seem that should be such a serious issue that it should be considered for deletion. MadMax 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The problem is, who gets defined as a mobster? More importantly, why does being Irish matter? Though probably not the author's intention, associating the two smacks of an ethnic attack. And there's no mention of Irish heritage in some of the articles listed, so why are they included? -- Kesh 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll notice the examples I provided, with exception to the North Side Gang which did include some Polish and German-Americans within its ranks, these mobsters headed or were members of criminal organizations which were predominanly made up of Irish-Americans such as the Westies, Egan's Rats, Winter Hill Gang and others. Organized crime is generally grouped by ethicity no different from Italian and Jewish-American organized crime, each of which have their own lists, and this list includes members of Irish-American organized crime no different then any of the other lists. Also all of the entries are categorized under Irish-American mobsters, regardless if their ethicity is mentioned in the article. MadMax 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If their ethnicity is not described in the article, how do we know they're Irish? It's this level of unverifiability that makes me vote to delete. There's nothing showing that the list is accurate, much less encyclopedic. -- Kesh 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references I have provided, specifically T.J. English's Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish American Gangster and Stephen Fox's Blood and Power: Organized Crime in Twentieth-Century America, clearly descibe all of these individuals involved in Irish-American organized crime. I can provide individual citations on each individual mobster if nessessary, although in my opinion I believe it is exessive and unessessary. MadMax 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Duke Mason[edit]

As for previous AfD that resulted in delete. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Auditioning does not provide notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not actually make it into any movies, so how can he be notable? Fails WP:BIO--155.144.251.120 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or properly source Alf photoman 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting aside the attempt to include speculative acting references, the fact remains that he is the son of two famous people and is noteworthy solely on that basis. --Lee Vonce 17:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the child of 2 fairly famous people is NOT in and of itself noteworthy. Neither is his non-existent acting career. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not notable...get rid of it. Gan fon 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy has done less acting than I have, and I'm not remotely notable. I could not find any verifiable sources to support the article. Magichands 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ganfon. WP:CSD A1 and A7 are relevant here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Frog Studios[edit]

NN-webcomic delete Cornell Rockey 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB requirments, the article does not WP:CITE sources, content is admitted to be from the primary source which does not abide by WP:RS and WP:V guidlines. Article reads like a first party self-promotion meaning that WP:OR and WP:VAIN may also come into play. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confirmed all that wtfunkymoney said. Fails almost everything!--155.144.251.120 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails at life. -Toptomcat 13:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, certainle fails WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very notable, no sources to back it up. Gan fon 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteNo, don't delete, fix, go to their site and use the info there to fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlhc (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Doesnt matter what info the site has it can't be noteable self references.--155.144.251.120 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources and fails WP:WEB. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, non-notable bio. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvin sethi[edit]

Nice comedian, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Wrong CaSe! Cate |_Talk 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stubSaurabh523 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - repaired, maybe it was simple vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cate (talk • contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly source and reference Alf photoman 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn). --Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kibo[edit]

This article reads like a personal ad. I suspect that this is just a vanity page.--Azer Red Si? 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom - I think I jumped the gun. This article is probably notable enough, but just needs cleanup.--Azer Red Si? 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Navou ^banter 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of loudspeaker manufacturers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list of lists Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree as per Kungfuadam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedHillian (talk • contribs).
Keep Nor is it a paper encyclopedia, if we have lists of companies by countries, manafacturers by industry why not this as well? -- Librarianofages 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is useful for reference. Loudspeakers article to big to include it. --155.144.251.120 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a reasonable list, not indiscriminate, majority blue links. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. (I say that a lot.) -Toptomcat 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Lots of things are useful but that doesn't mean we should include them. This article can never be more than a directory and original research. /Blaxthos 18:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, both of your rationals are pretty clearly false. Lists often get to featured status and to suggest we couldn't find a reliable source that a company manufactures loudspeakers is so strange I'm not sure how to rebutt it, since I can't fathom how you arrive at it. WilyD 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lots of things are "useless" (Pokemon, Power Rangers, Manga......

) but we still have articles on them. Jcuk 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rushmore Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall. Contested endorsed prod. Contested by an IP address, which didn't address my concerns, with "malls are notable". I stand by my original justification of "notability not asserted". Akihabara 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~delete~~ keep ~~Only~~ 828995 square feet of gross leasable area per [5], ~~a bit small to be a regional mall.~~ Big enough to be considered a superregional mall, so meets revised WP:MALL No historic or architectural claims to notability.~~, so does not satisfy anything in WP:MALL~~ Meets the proposed guideline for mall notability in area but nothing special otherwise. Edison 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly a regional mall. A mall of this size in a metropolitan area no larger than Rapid City is an important building and plays a major role in the history and life of the area. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should be able to point to where that major röle has been documented, in multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Other editors are saying that it has not been. You've cited no sources so far. And the article cites no sources. Uncle G 10:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:CORP through being the primary subject of multiple independent and reliable published sources. GRBerry 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails everything in WP:MALL. Is only half the size normally required. Nothing else noteable about the mall is given. No significant cultural, social and economic impact nor achitecture explained. No sources. Other mall pages have a specific overview table on the left that gives general details (including reasons why it would pass WP Mall such as the floor space). This article doesnt have one because it obviously doesnt satisfy anything.--155.144.251.120 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just seems like any old mall. The stores there are probably in the majority of malls. Just not notable. Gan fon 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Scimitar 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mall is a notable business center. No reason not to keep it. --Lee Vonce 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reason not to keep it is simple -- it fails WP:CORP and WP:MALL. I believe the default stance should be delete until meets notability requirements, not no reason not to keep it. /Blaxthos 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable; fails WP:MALL. No evidence of credible third-party coverage. Fairsing 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a superregional mall this should be notable and meets WP:MALL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MatthewUND and Ymaguchi, it is a superregional mall and meets WP:MALL. --Oakshade 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi... superregional, passes the proposed WP:MALL... I'd say that qualifies it as a keep. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Mall Sucks, Thats Why It Shouldn't Be On Wikipedia, I Should Know, I Worked In The Roach Infested Rathole For 3 Years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.47.21 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2010 (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 no consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Pk[edit]

Article already speedly deleted as "a7 nonnotable hacker" and then recreated. Even in this version, in my opinion, the article still doesn't prove Doctor Pk's notability and the 50000 defacements that the article say made by his hacking crew (but if the deface, aren't they crackers? lol) and recorded on Zone-h.org, aren't listed there (or maybe I didn't find them, anything is possible). But since the decision seems to be controversial, I brought the discussion here. by Snowolf (talk) on 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read l33t hack3x comment Ahsan 07:30 19-jan-2007 (UTC)

Deleteper nom. What a mess!. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no notability. --- RockMFR 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedying admin. Still a nonnotable hacker. NawlinWiki 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted. Seems to have WP:COI problems. References down right rediculous, you cannot reference a name or company in general. Does not cite as per WP:CITE.--155.144.251.120 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this page is not that bad, altho the refernces are not good but still i found some results on zone-h remind you (zone-h is only showing recent attacks archives) but still there are many links of this hacker defacements and group too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altaf 23 (talk • contribs) 18-01-2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Article need some editing, i have seen this Group work on alldas.de and attriton.org but found nothing on zone-h.org(Total attacks: 553 of which 204 single ip and 349 mass defacements...perhaps they are updating?lol dont know)The hacker is from pakistan and got some search results too on googleand yahoosearch. --Ahsan 18 jan 2007 (utc)
- Since you have done the search, you should be able to cite sources to demonstrate that the subject of this biographical article satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Neither anyone here nor any editor writing the article has cited any sources at all, so far. Uncle G 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since L33t Hack3x now have done the search,i think now there`s no point in deleting this page.!! Ahsan 07:16. 19 jan 2007 (UTC)
KEEP Nice work, people in pakistan do wana know about this. This will help and encourage other people to write more. The King 10:15, 18-01-07 (UTC)
- If it encourages people to write unsourced biographies, then that is a bad thing. Wikipedia does not want unsourced biographies, nor does it want unsourced content in general. All content must be based upon sources. Please read our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the l33t Hack3x Comment please if you have any doubts about this hacker's nonotablity. Ahsan 07:25 19-jan-2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP I just get myself register to write this comment, LOvely Work, nice article, excellent note i have never seen article`s on pakistani hackers so open albet its need a little fixing which i can do but i will recommand admins to keep this page on wiki, the link are weak but can be fix and alldas.de is soon comming with their old database so i guess their should`nt be any problem. And Snowwolf do you really know the differnce in hacker and cracker ?? if yes then WOW , if no then try this Hacker or Hack3r and ohh sorry i forget yes u know the meaning of hacker thats why u wrote that short funny note and laugh! but now a days the ethical are history try to get the point . pointing out someone`s mistake is easy but make it correct is hard !! As far as article is concern all the club names i.e. FBH(fedral bureau of hacking) PHC(pakistan hackers club) Gforce flooders or TheBugz they dont need ne refernce or links, u can just type their name on google and u can get the result !! And if DOCTOR_PK is nonotable hacker then i`ll must say .. Duh .. REad some news :) ... Anyways My vote is to KEEP ON !(DOCTOR_PK can be reached thro IRC but ummm i dont know wht ircd :( SO guess lets wait )
P.S: BTW .. the author didnt mention other pakis groups like cyberwarriors a-i-c(anti india crew) paklords etc may be because he`s updated and knows that these group are finished L33t Hack3x 18 jan 07 (UTC)

Comment Here i am back again, i searched for Doctor_Pk defacements and come up with RESULTS which is on Zone-h about Doctor_Pk web defecments Altho this link got only his few defacements but Still the Point is IT'S THERE !! u can Check his work on zone-h.org Here is the Link Mirrors and remind you that these defacements are recorded on early 2002 SO now you it makes easy for us to think about it. As far as the US Department of justice matter is concern i think it should be removed. I also wants to tell you That this hacker Doctor_Pk is also a X member of Group Called TheBugz u can check This Groups Defacements here is the direct link Bugz|mirrors and you can view Doctor_Pk name in crew list .. i m just pasting some links 1 2 3 so .. .. now all i have to say is Why not Someone from YOU who know`s good editing, edit this page and keeps it on WIKI...

M sure When Alldas.de is going to be up again Then there will be thousands of links for this Hacker !! Void.ru is closed now SO its now use to give that reference !! L33t Hack3x 04:10 19-jan-07

Since you can't "vote" twice, I've moved this comment below your previous one and titled appropriately. -- Kesh 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Everything on Wikipedia requires references, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. This is not a policy that one can "vote" down in AFD (which is a discussion, not a vote). The only way to counter it is to show that an article actually is verifiable. Uncle G 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No keep points have asserted nobility and neither does the article. Needs to have done something notable as to be mentioned in media sites etc. Claims the the US Department of justice is a reference but can't actually provide any document etc. to confirm this. There is absolutely NOTHING in the article that is has a source or is cited. The references section is a complete joke, having a minor mention on a semi-notable site does not make you noteable. Keep voters above haven't provided any notable sources that are able to validate any of the article.--Dacium 07:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per Dacium. If a hacker isn't notable enough to have been convicted of at least one felony he shouldn't listed here. --Lee Vonce 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, fails WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
quick comment to lee Vonce: a conviction isn't nessisary for hacker notability, but it is a quick way to see if they've caught anyone's attention. Captain Crunch was never convicted, but he invented Phreaking as we know it, for that matter the morris worm (widely regarded the first computer virus) lead only to probation and some community service. Wintermut3 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- quick reply: according to the article, Draper was convicted and sentenced to four months at Lompoc. In any case, there were other reasons Draper was notable. I don't see any reasons why Dr. Pk qualifies. --Lee Vonce 21:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that we have got links and references. Its not good to delete this page and scince as L33t Hack3x mentioned in his comment that when alldas.de is up again then there will be thousands of link . so i think we should keep this. Ahsan 07:20 19-jan-2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The sources given don't actually verify anything, and certainly don't satisfy WP:N. In addition, we can't just wait until some other web archive comes up with the nebulous promise of more references. -- Kesh 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think now we should keep this page and as far as waiting for alldas.de is concern, let me remind you in late 90's and 200-01 alldas was only major mirror`s recording site and if they are not operating anymore it doesnt mean that now that hacker dont exisit. The given links are satisfing. King 08:23 20-jan-2007 (UTC)
  - The links are not satisfying, and that's the problem. If alldas.de is not available, we cannot verify the assertions of the article, and it should be deleted. When/if alldas.de comes back up, if it provides verifiable information, then the article could be recreated with the proper references. There's no point in keeping up an unverifiable article based on the promise that someday there may be information to back it up. -- Kesh 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safelayer Secure Communications[edit]

Speedy deletion disputed here. Please confirm that this is pure spam. -- RHaworth 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confirmed. Fan-1967 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looks like a company that wants to promote itself. --CyclePat 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate. Looks like an ad, walks like an ad...it's probably an ad. // JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The company/product is notable for being certified, and implemented by the Spanish government and NATO. While there appears to be a WP:COI, the written article is not WP:SPAM. John Vandenberg 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is clearly WP:COI, would not exist if not for User Safelayer.mktg. Self promotion. Not noteable company, if it was they wouldnt have to make article themselves. Fails all criteria on Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) under 'Criteria for companies and corporations'. Being a 'real' company does not make it noteable, every buissness does real buissness...--155.144.251.120 03:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very, Very Weak Keep with Massive Cleanup Only - Because this is implemented by both the Spanish Government and NATO it is somewhat likely that a reader might want to look up information on the company here. However, this article reads less like information and more like a sales pitch. If someone feels up to cleaning it up, it can stay. Otherwise it needs to go, and if Safelayer's marketing department tries to recreate it again it should be immediately Deleted, Salted, and the company's domain should be blacklisted. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least provisionally, following cleanup. Probably needs the eye of an independent expert, but what I read - and specifically that this company's software is used by the Spanish gov't and NATO, suggests that it meets WP:CORP. (And frankly, the self-promotion in the prose is not that bad, and at least is mercifully free of buzzword nonsense.) - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam! /Blaxthos 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather weak keep and tidy it up to ensure it's non-advertising - as noted above, the use of its product by major governmental organizations seems to give enough notability. But, it definitely needs to be monitored to avoid promotional edits. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all. No sources, all spoilers, so nothing for me to merge, but the edit histories remain for salvaging if someone can locate independent sources and add encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Creedy[edit]

I am nominating all of the V for Vendetta secondary characters (with the exeception of Valerie page who apparently is the topic of a separate graphic novel) as they are mentioned to sufficient length on the main article a merge is not necessary. These pages provide little additional information and do not assert the significance of the characters outside of the fictional world Daniel J. Leivick 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe all these articles meet the notability criteria of being cited in non-trivial sources per WP:NOTE. Alternatively, though, we can consider deleting all other supporting characters from other works of fiction as well. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles MAY barely pass WP:NOTE as they are the subject of a comic and a movie (of the same title), but they fail WP:FICT which states that secondary characters should be merged. As for deleting all other secondary characters, it would be a good idea unless they are significant in some way, which none of these are. Daniel J. Leivick 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergethem all together, WP:FICT says minor characters are not notable enough to have their own page. A single page should include all the information for all these characters if it cannot fit into the V for Vandetta article.--155.144.251.120 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been done, see V for Vendetta main page. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think more info could be merged in before they are deleted.--155.144.251.120 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to V for Vendetta or a subarticle List of minor characters in V for Vendetta. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - far too much info to be lost.- Just Phil 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really any info here that isn't in a plot summary on a different page. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JustPhil. Additionally, it'd be a good idea to consider WP:NOTE to supercede WP:FICT. -Toptomcat 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to V for Vendetta. Minor characters from a largely unremarkable movie don't need their own articles.--Lee Vonce 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - they are characters from a largely remarkable graphic novel. But, let's leave personal opinions out of this.- Just Phil

17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters do not usually need articles no matter how remarkable the work of fiction that they come from. WP:NOTE may supersede WP:FICT but only if the characters are actually notable. Zero sources can be found for these characters outside of in universe fiction. I would merge only as a last resort as these characters are already mentioned with sufficient detail on the main page. These pages are merely plot summaries focused on a specific character. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) secondary characters do not warrant an article. 'Merge' would not be consistent with WP:NOT#IINFO a plot summary. The only encyclopedic info in the article is already in the main article. --maclean 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to V for Vendetta. No reason to spew articles all over Wikipdedia of nonnotable minor characters just because a movie is good. Have multiple independent articles been written about each of these characters in reliable sources? Not so you would notice from the articles. Edison 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either to V for Vendetta or to a related 'minor characters from' page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Young Skywalker (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: A LOT of people seem confused about this. V for Vendetta is not only, or even primarily, a movie; its primary claim to notability is as one of the best-known graphic novels of all time, having been written by Alan Moore, arguably the most notable writer in that medium. If the only form in which it existed was the frankly mediocre movie, I would also be confused about why these characters have separate pages, but that is not the case. -Toptomcat 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any confusion. The quality of the fiction does nothing to counteract the fact that there is no valuable info in these page. They are character focused plot summaries and should be merged with the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison and Lee Vonce both thought it was only a movie. I thought that was a sufficiently significant subset of 'delete' or 'merge' nominators to make the comment worthwhile. -Toptomcat 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is more then just a stub, seems article worthy and notable enough. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles that are much more than a stub are deleted, I don't see what makes these characters noteworthy, no sources exist outside of the fiction that they are a part of. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not interested, I believe it's a good article, I believe it's notable, unless you can provide me with a deletion reason don't try and convince me to change to your "side" -- as a side note: I don't think anybody appreciates you leaving comments to everybody who isn't on your side of the fence attempting to undermine them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a little civility? I don't think hostility is warranted, this is supposed to be a discussion, the idea is to discuss policy as it applies to this article I am arguing my point of view not exactly trying to undermine anybody. Personally I don't see any evidence that these characters are notable outside of their own fiction. Notability is not subjective it requires sources which at this point are not available. You asked me to provide you with a reason for deletion, but I think it is pretty clear, the deletion policy on minor characters states that if they do not have some kind of notability in the real world than they should be merged. I think that the main V page has enough character detail, but I wouldn't be opposed to a minor characters page that way we could use the pictures which would be nice. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a "minor characters" page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and review in a month. Given the allegorical nature of the V for Vendetta story, secondary characters could be more encyclopedic than the average fictional character. I do believe that these articles can be made more encyclopedic by discussing their allegorical roles (though in a verifiable way; don't want original research, of course). If, in a month, they aren't made more encyclopedic, then I would support a merge recommendation. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American TESOL Institute[edit]

Unable to find any evidence of notability despite searching. See Talk:American TESOL Institute for details A. B. ^(talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the google hits are self-serving press releases and adverts. Fails WP:CORP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail notability and certainly lacks reliable sources per WP:RS. EdJohnston 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – besides the notability problems already listed, the pattern of edits by the primary contributors, Atesol (talk · contribs), 24.122.13.145 (talk · contribs) and 71.201.181.10 (talk · contribs) raise conflict of interest concerns. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. While the TESOL certification is notable (and which is what this school trains students up for), this institute has not acheived notability yet. A Google search yields 908,000 results, but most of the results are for the TESOL certification itself. As a "non-deletionist", if anyone can point me to sources which prove notability, I will change my vote. Just write on my talk page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is interesting that the person who's been updating American TESOL Institute never mentioned TESOL Inc., and it is not listed as a TESOL affiliate. --Alvestrand 05:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, rather new, agressively spamming, web-using, TESOL institute offering on-line courses to anyone with the money to qualify. Wikipedia should aggressively persuade them not to use Wikipedia for ads, until they become notable enough elsewhere for an article to be justified. KP Botany 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not proven. WMMartin 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Peralta[edit]

Fails notability test. Google search turned up few to no independent articles. Few other articles link to it. Ocatecir 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promising young jazz pianist but apparently mainly known in Japan at this point. Unless WP:RS turn up, seems like his notability lies in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the kid really has two solo albums to his credit on an actual record label (not self-released) then I'd say that makes him notable.--Lee Vonce 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is the son of Stacy Peralta, a possible redirection target. The two albums appear to be self-published. There is possible non-trivial coverage at The Acorn.com, All About Jazz.com - I don't know enough about these sites to know whether they pass WP:RS. In the first 100 hits on Yahoo and Google, I see no evidence that subject has played outside California. On this basis, delete as failing WP:MUSIC, but it would not take much new evidence to change my mind. Eludium-q36 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: If he's the son of a notable person, then he's notable simply on that basis. He's already mentioned in his father's article in fact. Not only that, if he's been mentioned by mainstream jazz commentators, as you so deftly showed, then that gives the lad some notability of his own. Wouldn't you agree? --Lee Vonce 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but being the offspring of someone famous does not warrant their own page. Neither does the other reasons you've mentioned. The criteria for notability for whether or a not a page is warranted is listed at WP:Notability and WP:MUSIC among other places that give Wikipedia's guidelines. - Ocatecir 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability may have some dim reflective properties, but is certainly not hereditary, as Ocatecir has noted. The children of a notable person may get a brief mention in their parent's article, but an article of their own requires them to be evaluated as individuals, on their own merits. The links I've noted above may or may not constitute independent non-trivial coverage - jazz is certainly not my field of expertise, and I defer to those who know more about the field. Eludium-q36 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The kid is sure a whiz at self-promotion. Such schlocky fake posts of interest questions on jazz boards he posts. However, he does have two albums that appear to have at least sold a few. There are less notable people on Wikipedia. Still, that's no reason to include or exclude him. I can't figure anything out because of the overdose of self-promotion. This concerns me that the article should not be posted without a couple of solid neutral resources in line. KP Botany 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Un-notable bio and free server website!!! -- User:Chiketychina 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Cry) All the Way Home[edit]

As far as I can tell this song has zero relevance outside of the fictional Spinal Tap universe Daniel J. Leivick 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although Spinal Tap is quite a notable movie, this is a very, very, very, very, very minor joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and nomination. Strangely, it wasn't even bluelinked from Spinal Tap discography. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Messianic Jews[edit]

Delete This article should be deleted and at most the information may be merged into Messianic Judaism. This subset may not even exist, and if it does, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Avi 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as for Avi by Snowolf (talk) on 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. GabrielF 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the lack of references and the quotes from the New Testament this feels like OR GabrielF 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete lack of sources. Need sources to get to square one on WP:N and WP:V. --Shirahadasha 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article's use of quotes from the New Testament as its exclusive source, including as support for a claim that a modern movement exists and has been in existence "for centuries", is but one example of the article's level of WP:OR. Even if the New Testament could be interpreted as calling for Jewish converts to continue living as Orthodox Jews (a view that would appear to be, at the least, debatable), this provides no evidence, as claimed, that "this very thing has existed amongst them for centuries" or that there exists a notable or verifiable group of such individuals today. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GabrielF. Pretty blatant OR. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources, per se, is not grounds for deletion. This does read like original research, though, and uses insider jargon instead of plain English (Yeshua). - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, likely OR.-- danntm ^T _C 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:V, WP:OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no such animal! The whole point of Messianic Jews is that they claim to be "like Orthodox Jews" so that it makes absolutely no sense to talk of "Orthodox Messianic Jews" besides which, it's a total oxymoron as if to say there are "Orthodox Reform Jews" or "Orthodox Jewish atheists" all of which would defy logic and reality. This stub is entirely WP:OR and is nothing but a WP:NEO and must go. IZAK 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense. Tom e r ^talk 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wouldn't be going so far as some others and calling this nonsense! I know people who regard themselves as this. Mathmo ^Talk 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why then is the article completely unsourced? — coelacan talk — 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, without room for equivocation, complete and utter nonsense, regardless of what you would call it or what some undocumented people regard themselves as. Some people believe they're aliens stranded here from when Hale-Bopp passed by Earth. That doesn't mean their beliefs are anything but nonsense. IZAK does a good job above of clarifying that this is not only nonsense, it's even oxymoronic. Beyond that, even if it weren't pure unmitigated hogwash, the article fails to cite a single supporting source. Tom e r ^talk 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note to closing admin: check out the talk page also. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.60 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am an Orthodox Messianic Jew. True the article appears unsourced at this time, but it is a brand new article. I'd say give the author a chance to respond to sourcing the article. Messianic representation on Wiki is like very minimal (in fact I seem to be the only known regular at this point); and I myself am hardly on once a week. The guy who created the article probably isnt on for durations shorter than mine at the most. If people want sources, feel free to request them. Submitting a brand new article for VfD due to lack of sourcing is not the best way to go about it. It will only serve in having the article probably recreated by the original author who may have totally missed this VfD discussion. Shalom. If someone wants me to provide sources, post on my talk page and I'll make it a priority. If you want a website to an orthodox Messianic synagogue check out: http://www.rootsofthemessiah.com/ for sources. inigmatus 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misunderstanding your intent and that of the website you cited above, it appears blatantly obvious that these people make no claim to being "orthodox", and certainly not "Orthodox Jews". On this page, in fact, they clarify that they are not Jews according to rabbinical determinations, which indicates that whatever they are, they are absolutely not orthodox. The fact that they claim to be "Torah-based" is also at odds with their statement of faith, especially obvious in their Paulinist self-contradictory version of the Sh'ma. So, I'm wondering if perhaps your claim to being an "Orthodox Messianic Jew" is specifically a claim to be following the orthodox beliefs of Messianic Judaism, as opposed to what I think everyone else here is assuming, namely that you are claiming to be an Orthodox Jew who believes Jesus was the Messiah. Please clarify. Tom e r ^talk 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are misunderstanding what is meant by the term "Orthodox Messianic Judaism" but you're not far from the definition. "Orthodox" isn't a term exclusively owned by rabbinic Orthodox Judaism, however in this case, a relation can be implied and should be. I disagree with your assement of the so-called contradictory "Pauline" version of the Shema. But this isn't the place to debate theology. An orthodox Messianic Jew is a Messianic Jew who has accepted as many practices of Orthodox Judaism that do not conflict with faith in Messiah Yeshua - now I know Orthodox Jews would say all of it contradicts it, but that's just not the opinion of Orthodox Messianic Jews who live it. Obviously this means OMJs reject the OJ view that God can not manifest himself in the physical. So then the definition becomes not one of an OJ becoming Messianic per se, but rather a Messianic becomming more like Orthodox Jews in lifestyle, tradition, and practice. Thus the most obvious difference between a Messianic Jew and an Orthodox Messianic Jew is that the Orthdox Messianic Jew has a religious and theological reason for wearing a kippa (usually the same reasoning Orthodox Jews do), they will wear a tallit katan, keep kosher (some even glatt); study Talmud as well as Torah; and lay tefillin - basically they observe the Torah commandments PLUS orthodox rabbinic traditions that do not conflict with faith in Messiah Yeshua - namely the theological view that nothing oral or traditional should EVER nullify the clear and expressed written of the Torah. The list goes on: they keep beards, grow out the sides of their hair, dont drive on Shabbat, and live a very strict lifestyle. However, they wont care to wash hands before eating for anything other than sanitary reasons, because Yeshua taught that belief that clean food eaten with unwashed hands was failing to distinguish between clean and unclean as the Torah is specifically clear that we should do, and here a handwashing tradition nullifies this commandment to distinguish between clean and unclean because by tradition one is led to think that clean food is not clean to eat if eaten with unwashed hands - but this is only a tradition and nullifies the written commandment to "distinguish" as the Torah distinguishes and not as tradition does. This is a group of Messianics that are a far cry different from Ham-eating Easter-keeping Jews for Jesus who find themselves inaccurately labeled as "Messianic Jews" by outsiders who don't know the difference. In short, an orthodox Messianic Jew is a Messianic Jew who in addition to observing written Torah, also engages in the traditions of rabbinic Judaism as found in the Talmud and elsewhere, where it doesn't conflict with expressed Torah commandments and the principles of Torah observance that Yeshua laid out. inigmatus 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this isn't the place to debate theology, but it is appropriate to discuss proper naming of articles here. The statement "An orthodox Messianic Jew is a Messianic Jew who has accepted as many practices of Orthodox Judaism that do not conflict with faith in Messiah Yeshua..." quite clearly indicates that "orthodox" is not a part of the appellation (it also states quite unequivocally that these people are "Judaizing Christians", or "born-again Christians with a few Jewish practices"). What's obviously being discussed is Messianic Jews, and the proper place to do so is in Messianic Judaism. Merge whatever material is relevant from this stub into that article, with proper sourcing, and under an appropriate section heading. It does not warrant an article of its own. Tom e r ^talk 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to this VfD, I have added quite a number of quoted and linked references to the article now proving it's legitimacy and notability. inigmatus 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reviewed these sources, and it's not clear they support the claims made. A critical reason is that "Messianic" has several distinct ordinary meanings when used to describe Orthodox Jews, which have nothing to do with Jesus. For example, the article that mentions "fanatical messianic Orthodox Jews" in Hebron refers to a group who are fervently awaiting the coming of the (first) Jewish messiah -- nothing to do with Jesus. Similarly, Messianic Lubavitchers refers to a group of Chabad-Lubavitch who believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the Jewish Messiah. (See Yechi for more detail). Again, nothing to do with Jesus at all. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about the use of "messiah" and "messianic" in Judaism, which has a very different meaning from its meaning in Christianity. Perhaps this whole article is the result of a misunderstanding. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- it's been corrected now. inigmatus 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inigmatus? What are you doing? Does adding "Beit Tefilla, however could be classified as an Orthodox Messianic Jewish congregation according to this wiki article." seriously make sense to you? You invent your own personal definition of "orthodox Messianic Jew" and then say you've proved the legitimacy of your chosen definition by citing some website, which doesn't say anything about the term you've chosen nor the definition you've contrived, but then based upon your interpretations of their website contents, you say that according to the definition you've come up with they could be considered "orthodox Messianic". This is a rather difficult to follow, but it's clearly circular reasoning, and it definitely does nothing to strengthen your argument. Tom e r ^talk 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you neglected to quote the far more relevant part of what they do say about your term, to wit:

We are NOT "Sacred Namers," "Two-House," "Dual Covenant/Noachide," "Lunar Shabbat," "Orthodox Messianic," or any of the other bizarre, cult-like sub-movements that have branched off from the Messianic movement in the last decade or so.

It would seem that not only are they not "orthodox Messianic", they abhor the name or any association with how they define the term (which is apparently at odds with your preferred definition). So, again, I'm compelled to ask... "What are you doing?" Tom e r ^talk 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that Shirahadasha's concerns are not going to be adequately addressed or even taken seriously, however, they are absolutely correct concerns. The "sourcing" of this article has been attempted with a shotgun, and I still see no reason to believe that any such group of people exists. Chabad-Lubavitch'ers, yes. Orthodox Messianic Jews? Nope, made up, delete. — coelacan talk — 10:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!!!!! How did this even get discussed? frummer 07:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Wikipedia, it's part of the information super highway and anything can drop (in) on it. Instead of "LOL"ing -- please VOTE!!! Thank you, IZAK 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per almost everyone else here. Ridiculous article. Daniel^C/_T+ 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the list of editors supporting delete, you don't suppose this is another case of bandwagoning based on the concept of sheer mainstream Jewish rejection of any concept of Orthodox Messianic Jews - of which I am one? I mean come on, I at least know who I am. The sources provided paint a picture of Orthodox Messianic Jews, and the references provided clearly use the term "Orthodox Messianic" to describe them. One would have to be blatantly biased against the existence of Orthodox Messianic Jews to reject their existence at this point. I hope the admin takes this truth into consideration. The article is noteworthy and increases the legitimate knowledge of the Wiki community about a group that gets the rap from both mainstream Jews and mainstream Christians, and if comments like "ridiculous" and "hoax" aren't enough to raise a red flag over the intentions of some of the obvious non Messianic Jewish editors here voting to delete yet another Messianic Judaism related article, then call me blind. inigmatus 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, perhaps, it is an attempt of someone with a self-avowed POV to push it into wikipedia, notwithstanding existing policies and guidelines regarding size, notability, fringe elements, and the like? Just hypothesizing. -- Avi 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The hypothesis works both ways. Any attempt by Messianic Jews to assert the truth of who they are, what they are, and what they believe, is often met by the Jewish editing community on Wiki with accusations of POV pushing, notability, and wikilawyering. WP:AAGF seems to be a foreign concept to some editors when it comes to Messianic contributions to Wikipedia. Maybe it should be taken as an honor that Messianic Judaism articles are now actively policed by the standard group of "delete" editors above; but to be honest, as I always keep saying in these VfDs that ultimately get concluded to 'keep' anyways in spite of the sheer number of delete votes, submitting an article for vfd is not the best way to go about improving wikipedia; but it sure is a good way to POV push and *gasp* dare I say: "censor" legitimate articles that enhance the knowledge of one exploring the subject. Imagine how much better the article could be if all the time spent in these VfD debates over Messianic articles was actually spent on IMPROVING the article rather than cackling to get them deleted because a bunch of people have a POV that no such belief is compatible with biblical Judaism. inigmatus 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inigmatus, you cannot have it both ways. The above is a blatant expression of assumption of no good faith in the rest of the community. You have no idea what the rest of us believe about anything. Your protest about "wikilawyering" clearly indicates that you have no idea what the term means. Please stop trying to talk about the people who disagree with you here, and concentrate on the subject at hand, i.e., the article. You have yet to demonstrate that there is any merit in keeping this article, and, in fact, your latest contributions here, and to the article as well, seem to underscore the correctness of all the "delete" votes. Tomer^talk 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that this proposed "Orthodox Messianic Judaism" is a fringe group of the already fringe Christian group that is MJ, it is not in the least unreasonable to nominate it for deletion under notability. If it is indeed notable, it should be fairly straightforward to show this - the fact that the article has previously cited sources that would condemn the movement as irrelevant in the strongest possible terms (i.e. Lubavitch Messianics) is ample evidence that even the authors and contributors can't find a way to prove notability and are grasping at any straw that's entitled "Messianic Judaism". I fully support notable MJ articles, but this isn't one of them. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Inigmatus, if you find someone cackling, I suggest a nice bowl of chicken soup. I understand, to an extent, the paranoia you are exhibiting here. However, I do not believe anyone is attempting to delete articles that belong, such as Messianic Judaism itself. The article we are currently discussing is a neologism at best, and a POV attempt to create a linkage with an accepted form of Judaism at worst. Either way, the topic of this article is not wiki-worthy as it currently stands. If the movement creates enough buzz and press coverage (by reliable and verifiable sources -- not self-aggrandizing websites and poli-zines) over the next few years, and justifies its existence as a legitimate accepted subgroup of Messianic Judaism -- in the eyes of more than its adherents and fringe elements(not to mention the laundry list of self-contradictions and other problems raised above that make this look like it falls somewhere between WP:NEO and WP:HOAX, each of which are unacceptable) -- then the article will survive. Until that point, I believe any impartial wiki editor would agree that this is not an acceptable article for wikipedia. -- Avi 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I cannot wait till User:Inigmatus starts creating articles about Haredi Messianic Jews; Hasidic Messianic Jews (especially Satmar Messianic Jews and Chabad-Lubavitch Messianic Jews -- who would be more "messianic" since Lubavitch already has their candidate and it's gonna be hard to convince the world that Satmars love anyone more than their old "Reb Yoilish Teitelmaum"?); Modern Orthodox Messianic Jews (that should fun, do you think that Shlomo Riskin could compete here?) and how about Religious Zionist Jews, hmmmm, can JC displace Rav Kook? Stay tuned, if anyone can create these kinda articles (with matching templates to provide "understanding" and linkage to even more Judaism articles and personalities, of course) Inigmatus can... so Inig, I hope you are reading those Jewish encyclopedias cause you have your work cut out for you 'ol buddy. IZAK 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        First I didn't create the OMJ article; second, I don't have the time to catch every VfD offered on Messianic Judaism articles and respond to comments like yours, let alone create articles for groups which I myself have limited knowledge of. inigmatus 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Are there a lot of Messianic Judaism articles? Are a lot of such articles facing proposed deletion? If so, which? Tom e r ^talk 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we focus on the article's merits ojectively rather than placing it in the confines of a Mainstream Jewish-Messianic Jewish debate, I thinkthis article deserves to be deleted with some of the key pieces being moved into the Messianic Jews article or elsewhere. The subject of the article is too small to warrant its own entry and would be better served as part of the larger movement (I can think of a number of subsets with the various Reform/Conservative/Orthodox denominations that don't deserve their own pages either). Should the group grow in size and notability, a page can be re-created then. But my second reason is that it isn't really a very well-written article. It has a defensive tone that reads like a member of the group wrote it rather than an encyclopedic objective approach. The sources at the bottom are not integrated well and they serve more to simply acknowledge the group's existence than to further the article. If the page remains (which it isn't looking likely) then it needs some massive rewrites. JerseyRabbi 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments to delete outweight those to keep. Our rules on verifiability are non-negotiable. Proto::► 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sneeze[edit]

Nonnotable blog. Cited sources assert notability, but don't really show it. Alexa ranking below 90,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way. Alexa ranking is 80,665 (lower it is, better it is - I also have to say that Alexa rank wipe out operating systems different from microsoft and browser different from Internet Explorer, so it's not a good index), google page rank is 6/10 (net's average, according to UrlTrends, is 2/10 --> [6]. The website The Truth Liad Bear, has a 7/10 pagerank but it's not in Alexa 100,000 (which means n/a). by Snowolf (talk) on 03:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All it needs is a major makeover. It appears to be notable, but it does need a huge clean-up. Gan fon 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am rather new to making pages at wikipedia, as soon as i figure it out, i will clean it up. i'm sure somewhere in the 8000 daily readers there is a wikipedian besides me. I just started it, and i plan to finish it.Cherryeater987 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup Sorry for the tough love, but, ugh, this is one of the most poorly written articles I've ever seen. Read through the Manual of Style please. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one mention in PC Magazine in 2005 is one (1) WP:RS, and I could find no others. Technorati rank is 1577, which isn't really impressive, nor is TTLB ecosystem ranking (171) below 100. Alexa and Google stats presented above (80,000? 6/10?) are just a joke. It's a cute personal blog, but fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one mention in PC magazine is not enough, the number of hits a website gets does little to assert notability.--Daniel J. Leivick 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks multiple, independent reliable sources. Recury 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS /Blaxthos 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Ott's Sneeze (film). Come on. I doubt anyone typing in "The Sneeze" as a search term is going to be looking for some guy's blog. Wavy G 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless editor learns how to bring it up to snuff instead of relying on the other 8000 readers. TonyTheTiger 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Hey.. give it a chance. It's a very entertaining and relatively longstanding blog with enough readers to warrant an entry. when did wikipedia become such an exclusive organization? I'm trying my best to learn how to make the page better, but i have little time and skill. FYI, i am NOT the site's author. Cherryeater987 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to have real world notability. GassyGuy 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So Wikipedia should keep stuff like this but a blog with 7000 visits a day should get the boot? It may be poorly written by Wikipedia standards, but it's pretty short so it's easily fixed. Unmitigated Success 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment naming other articles that you think should be deleted does nothing to assert the notability of of this article. 7000 Visits a day doesn't do much either we need verifiable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Last time i checked, most encyclopedias don't need a "You must be this famous to enter" sign. 7000 people. hey! that's a lot. that's REGULAR VISITORS. filtering out one time visitors, according to the author's counters. An encyclopedia should be a comprehensive index of information. and by adding this page, thereby making it more comprehensive, i and all the members of the sneeze are helping out. Not hindering. as long as it contains information about the page and author, it should stay. and even at its current undeveloped stage, it contains information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherryeater987 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't have to be "famous," perhaps, but it does have to meet some basic guidelines, else there'd be no way to delete any article. Also, you don't have to start every comment with "keep." GassyGuy 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The TV show South Park is valid on Wikipedia. The Sneeze is no less worthy a venue for entertainment or satire.--B2k 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something exists does not mean it automatically gets a wikipedia article. South Park is notable, and its article establishes its notability. Wavy G 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, check the hamper for missing socks; this is this user's first edit. Wavy G 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its visitor stats are not that bad. Killroy4 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the site appears to have a pretty strong presence, but more reference and evidence of notability should be added in order for it to stay. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Precedence and popularity is NO reason to advertise a blog on Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. Discount major sockpuppetry.--WaltCip 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who is advertising? i am in no way affiliated with the blog or its author, and stand no benefit by this being here, i was just trying to do a service and make wikipedia more complete.Cherryeater987 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shogun Wars (Online Game)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The game was previously deleted here while still in beta. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google, and it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Verifiability issues. Posting a pre-emptive anon-vote warning. Wafulz 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything that could be considered a source that is independent of the company itself and thus has no notibility (Wikipedia:Notability (software)). Game has only 800 accounts active. Has WP:COI problems, as creator seems to be author based on edit comments.--155.144.251.120 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of site was NOT the author of this Wiki; I was. Creator re-named Wiki for capitalization. It's a good, up-and-coming game, why not keep it?Dp76764 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said in the nomination- verifiability from reliable sources and WP:WEB. Also the capitalization is wrong too. It should be Shogun Wars (online game). I have absolutely no idea why it wasn't just made at Shogun Wars seeing as that article name isn't taken.... --Wafulz 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up and coming? Quite possibly. But we are an encyclopaedia whihc requires reliable non-trivial independent secondary sources, so you'll have to come back when it's actually up and arrived. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability or secondary sources. Nothing has changed since the last AFD except that the game has a larger userbase and the developer's blog is encouraging players to 'fight' for the article in any AFDs that occur [7] (see Jan 8 entry), missing the point. The amount of players which would deem this game notable is debatable, though 800 active players for a product that is being given away on the web doesn't leave much room for discussion. Get some reliable sources and we can build a balanced article, until then I'd suggest Shogun Wars' fans refrain from adding an entry and that any relisting without secondary sources is speedied. QuagmireDog 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This bothers me, QuagmireDog... secondary sources? The terms is boggling since in any research, you would rather have primary resources. So whatever you mean is unclear. I find much shorter, less interesting articles all over wiki, ever hit that random article button? and do not see these articles backed by "reliable sources". Many wiki articles beg for sources or do not cite any at all. So your argument makes little sense to me; "any relisting without secondary sources is speedied."? Is this a jargon that is spoken somewhere I am unfamiliar with? There is no product given away, it is played on the internet, much like Wiki is not given away, it is used and enjoyed by millions. Both SW and Wiki are free, therefore neither gives away a product, but offer a service. If it were selling a product, would this not be an advertisement and therefore misguided in advertising on Wiki? The article is, in part, simply the beginnings of an explanation for players to refer friends to and say, this is what I enjoy. There are many MMPORGs or whatever they are called scattered all over Wiki as well as just games in general. In fact, the game Half Life got on the front page roughly the same day this article appeared. As for comment above about SW designers making this article. Neither the article creator nor myself are designers, we are players. Wafulz faults the capitalization as if that is something to delete article for. Note in the next comment, the person cannot spell which (JzG). Do we condemn that person or fix it? Hardly a reason for deletion. I am afraid I see little in the Delete comments that really merits deleting an article that several people have already worked on and argued to keep. I will note one thing fyi, just so you understand my vehemence. I enjoy the game and in fact won the first age of the game under the name of Tobionitaru. Valthalas 21 January 2007
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is a tertiary source, taking information from reliable secondary sources and some core details from the primary, original research is not usable. No secondary sources and no appropriate award is a failure of WP:WEB, which is why the article stands to be deleted and is the only reason needed for deletion.

Speedy deletion means just that, deletion without a five-day AFD process, nuke on sight. Recreation of previously deleted material is eligible for speedy deletion. If players wish to refer their friends to the game then that is exactly what they should do, point them to the Shogun Wars website so they can create an account. Video games in general are not under the microscope here, there is no reason that VGs cannot be in WP which is why that hasn't been said - Half Life got on the front page because it is a featured article, IE is an article of the highest quality on WP. All featured articles are loaded with secondary sources, that's what WP is about. If yourself or any other contributor wishes to keep this article, Valthalas, then I'd suggest you try to find some secondary sources (if they exist), because it's the lack of them which is the problem here. QuagmireDog 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments for Valthalas:
- I pointed out capitalization as a note, in case the editor wanted to create a page sometime in the future- I never once suggested it as a reason for deletion. The article should actually just be at Shogun Wars since there is no article under that name.
- Using the game , its players, and its website as the only sources actually violates No original research and makes it impossible to create a neutral article.
- The deletion comments are actually founded on Wikipedia policies: verifiability and No original research
- Before you compare this article to that of Half-Life 2, please examine Half_life_2#References--Wafulz 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3/g10, vandalism/attack page. NawlinWiki 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becca manns[edit]

Not notable, no sources. Plain old vandalism. Gan fon 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phelan Sanders[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. The author has been unable to provide any sources to substantiate the notability claim of the subject. Prod removed by the author. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax, 1 Google hit for the creator of the most popular song in DC for 2006 give me a break. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if not hoax does not meet WP:CITE--155.144.251.120 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for Leebo by Snowolf (talk) on 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy if possible, since the assertions of notability are blatantly untrue. Flyingtoaster1337 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxes. No google hits for "bang it till it stop". As I've said before, I wish obvious hoaxes like this one were speediable. --N Shar 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone must by trying to pull our leg Alf photoman 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedy deleted, doesn't seem to be notable as I could find no information on Google. --Nehrams2020 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 155.144.251.120. --Richmeister_talk 09:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Vanuatu[edit]

Subject won't ever be anything more than a stub or small entry. The article has been a stub since 2002. I've already taken the little information that the article contained and put it into the Vanuatu article ([8]) so that it wouldn't be lost. Cla68 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ It will never be expanded, I think. Since it's already merged with Vuanatu, the article isn't much important. by Snowolf (talk) on 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect changed for Kirill Lokshin by Snowolf (talk) on 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; nothing to merge, but no reason to make searching more difficult than it needs to be. Kirill Lokshin 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, changing my vote to redirect ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep as this is a standard subarticle to have for sovereign countries, and it facilitates categorization. They are also periodically in the news[9] so the article has potential for expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll create it when we need to. They only have a paramilitary right now. --Ineffable3000 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Ineffable3000, at the moment there isn't much need of such an article by Snowolf (talk) on 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted below, we can categorize a redirect to the appropriate section of the Vuanatu article, leaving us with the same navigation and categorization as before. We can always break out the separate article again if/when someone actually wants to write one; but, given that there's no assurance that one can be written, including the available material directly in the main article seems like a cleaner approach. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect support also. Cla68 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ... holy cow, are you serious??? Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but that's why we're discussing a merge/redirect, not an outright deletion, now. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Until such time as we can categorize redirects, so that a redirect page can appear in Category:Military by country, this should remain. Until then, even if a tiny paramilitary is all they have, this page should stay, if only to avoid WP:BIAS. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth pointing out that we can categorize redirects? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung.-- danntm ^T _C 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung (occasional news coverage) and Smerdis of Tlön (WP:BIAS). Additional information may be available in print sources. The article could use some cleanup, however, as right now it just seems to be copied from the CIA World Factbook.Black Falcon 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be appropriate here, but only due to the total lack of information on the subject. Nlsanand 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the justifications provided by Dhartung and Smerdis of Tlön, redirects discourage expansion (indeed, they have been used as surrogate deletions). Indeed, if the country primarily has to outsource its military, there ought to be some discussion of that somewhere, possibly in local press. Serpent's Choice 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suspect that more could be said about this topic. For example, our article on Espiritu Santo (island) which is part of Vanuatu states "Between May and August 1980 the island was the site of a rebellion during the transfer of power over the colonial New Hebrides from the British–French Condominium to independent Vanuatu. Jimmy Stevens' Nagriamel movement, in alliance with private French interests and backed by American libertarians hoping to establish a tax-free haven, declared the island of Espiritu Santo independent of the new government. British Royal Marines and a unit of the French Garde Mobile were deployed to the nation's capital island but did not invade Espiritu Santo as the soon-to-be government had hoped. The troops were recalled shortly before independence. Following independence Vanuatu, now governed by Father Walter Lini, requested assistance from Papua New Guinea, whose forces invaded and restored order on Espiritu Santo." Capitalistroadster 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and Capitalistroadster.-gadfium 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per user Capitalistroadster. Wikipedia is systematically biased against subjects with little available info; there's a massive amount of information about the militaries of the Pacific that could be added if people had all the local newspapers available. It doesn't much make it into books, unfortunately.

Buckshot06 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, is such a tiny article it is almost a blank page! I'll fully support it being on its own page if only it had at least one whole paragraph! But as it is now it is just one little sad article, it should go join up with its Daddy! Another comment, when the main article [10] goes into greater detail than the subarticle you know something is wrong! Mathmo ^Talk 09:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is Vanuatu's military and there's no good reason to redirect it to another topic as there's the potential to expand it, though the current article is very lacking. --Nick Dowling 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture references in Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide[edit]

Nonsense such as "In the episode about secrets, Ned and Cookie, after getting chased by Billy Loomer, ran to Moze, who told them "You guys look like you've seen a ghost" in a similar way Captain James T. Kirk told Captain Spock in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." The article is filled to the brim with trivial, unsourced opinions of editors. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT, not material relavent for encylopedia.--155.144.251.120 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per common sense. Incredibly, vastly, deeply trivial. -Toptomcat 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. Recury 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, inane, impossible to verify, and just plain useless. Magichands 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Delete completely useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EditingManiac (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate, unverifiable fancruft. ShadowHalo 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drivel. ( But I suspect ShadowHalo is wrong when he says this is unverifible... I'm sure someone with nothing better to do could confirm that Everclear is indeed mentioned in Episode 17 of Season 2... But why would they want to ? ) Non-notable. WMMartin 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End Year Chart 1991[edit]

Unexplained list of Spanish song titles. "What links here" reveals that it's an end-of-year chart for Billboard Magazine's Hot Latin Tracks. I'm not sure if we can legitimately republish this list without running afoul of Billboard's intellectual property rights. In any case, I don't believe it belongs here - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note: PROD removed by anonymous editor without explanation or change to article. FreplySpang 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating End Year Chart 1989 for deletion; same thing, two years earlier. FreplySpang 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. End of year chart is not notable.--155.144.251.120 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to imagine this is copyright infringement. GassyGuy 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreating the year-end chart has got to be copyright infringement. ShadowHalo 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trannies (Transformers)[edit]

Article about a self-produced on-line one man awards show for the Transformers community. No sign whatsoever of reliable third-party coverage. I doubt that much can be found outside the transformers community itself which does not exactly control reliable publications. Of course Googling for "Trannies" is useless, unless... ahem, unless your looking for a different kind of tranny. Here's the result of a more specific search.[11] Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have any relavance outside the transformer community and cannot even assert notibility within it.--155.144.251.120 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My granny would sometimes listen to her tranny. "The transformer community" (?) could perhaps create its own wiki for stuff like this "awards show"; as for WP, delete as Pascal.Tesson suggests. -- Hoary 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Interestingly, you'd think the page was created yesterday by an unexperienced user but as it turns out, it was created back in the prehistory of Wikipedia by JIP (talk · contribs) who's now an admin and one of Wikipedia's busiest editors. But we all make rookie mistakes! :-) Pascal.Tesson 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was surprised by that too! Must be a bit of a "What was I thinking?" sort of situation. Of course, in all fairness, back then our notability/verifiability guidelines were sparse and poorly enforced, and a lot of articles like this were being created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot assert notibility. Fails WP:WEB etc.--Dacium 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest merging to Transformers community but I don't think we have such an article. Therefore I have to say weak delete as not notable enough. JIP | Talk 07:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the holy trinity: WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Not only that, but it stopped in 2003, so no future notability is forthcoming either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as nonsense, bad joke, etc. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medi-Kill[edit]

An "upcoming movie" with no evidence outside this article that it is in fact coming up. Which is a bit odd, given the number of big name actors that are apparently slated to appear in it. You'd think someone would have mentioned it, at least enough to get a note on IMDB. I suspect that this is a daydream, a hoax, and/or something made up in school one day.. (Note: PROD removed without addressing the sourcing issue) FreplySpang 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as for FreplySpang by Snowolf (talk) on 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is obvious hoax. Look at actors and there character names. Someone tag this for speed delete --155.144.251.120 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wafulz marked this as speedy! (rightfully so Delete) SkierRMH 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Malbrew[edit]

Non-notable, but some relevant references in a quick search on google, so might not quite be a CSD. Delete. Kesac 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:COI violation, username article name. Fails WP:BIO, No assertion of notibility (claims to be Film Producer without asserting any notible works)--155.144.251.120 04:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Vanity auto-bio--Kevin Murray 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for 155.144.251.120 & Kevin Murray by Snowolf (talk) on 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above fails WP:BIO and WP:COI does not assert notibility and cannot find anything that is noteable.--Dacium 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like a person who's accomplished a lot in life, but has not (yet?) achieved the level of recognition we are looking for (WP:BIO). FreplySpang 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or properly reference and source Alf photoman 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nigeria in America 2004[edit]

Non-notable, as far as I can tell. Less than 180 Ghits, and oddly enough, this is the only edition of this pageant which happens to be mentioned anywhere here, which makes me think that perhaps the page was made for vanity purposes by the winner. It's also plenty of NPOV and embellishment (Tawes Theatre is anything but prestigious.....). fuzzy510 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now If we can verify it it should stay, pending a cleanup. If not, then delete. --John24601 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be an attempt to sneak a non-notable bio in through the back door by pretending to actually be about a pageant. I note that "Miss Nigeria in America" gets just 61 unique Google hits, and that's counting Wikipedia and mirrors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a review of a very unremarkable event, which appears to be a one off. Nuttah68 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn event; unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would vote to keep if enough other countries had similar pageants. Can not endorse as a lone pageant. TonyTheTiger 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn event. Miss Nigeria in Nigeria would be notable as major national competition per WP:BIO, but Miss Nigeria in America.... I think not. Ohconfucius 08:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome (film)[edit]

Unreleased and unfinished film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. Delete. MikeWazowski 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Many movies/books to be released get articles as long as there are sources. Although it is not a crystal ball if it is being filmed and there are sources to say it does it does exist. Eitherway I don't see how it can be noteable before it is released.--155.144.251.120 05:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't agree with the previous argomentation, because a film in production can meet the guidelines linked by MikeWazowski, in my opinion. But we must ask ourselves "the event is notable and almost certain to take place"? Notable it is BUT certain not too much, and this is why I voted weak oppone: the only source linked in the article, IMDB, say "Production appears to have been abandoned due to Pendragons financial status.". So, for me, the discussion is ended ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and recreate if film ever gets actually gets finished/released. Static Universe 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture parodies of businesses[edit]

wikipedia is NOT a random collection of information. delete as listcruft Cornell Rockey 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was just in the process of nominating this when you got to it first. This list has an OR trifecta-one must make a judgment call as to what is part of pop culture, what is a parody, and what business it's supposedly parodying! Seraphimblade 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR not cited able and therefore not maintainable. Out of control list.--155.144.251.120 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an absolutely unmaintainable list. theProject 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not maintainable and original research.--Dacium 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as different people have different takes of what parody is, so POV neutrality will be questioned. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Article has gone through numerous vandalism attempts to remove the AfD tag. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CornellRockey Maniac 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft at its most unmaintainable. ShadowHalo 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It also attracts MascotGuy like a magnet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G5 (MascotGuy). Nishkid 64 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture parodies of media[edit]

wikipedia is NOT a indiscriminate collection of information. delete as listcruft. Article does not source, nor will it ever be likely to cite a source. As with most indiscriminate lists the article will either be massively incomplete or impossible to keep accurately. --wtfunkymonkey 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination Cornell Rockey 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comment above and an unmaintainable list. theProject 05:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research as well as unmaintainable, fancruft, nonecylopedic WP:NOT violation.--Dacium 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as different people have different takes of what parody is, so POV neutrality will be questioned. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G5. This article is created by Mr. Worldster, a sockpuppet of the blocked user MascotGuy. See WP:LTA/MG for more information about what he edits, his editing style, and a long list of his sockpuppets. The article is also uncyclopedic. Squirepants101 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WALL• E[edit]

This is the 2nd time that a WALL-E or W.A.L.-E. related page has been created in short weeks. Consensus last time was to delete the page and wait until more information about the film has been released before adding it to Wikipedia SpikeJones 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable: Not even IMDB has public information about it. by Snowolf (talk) on 05:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMDb is primarily user-contributed information, and while most of us count on it to provide relevant info it is not the end-all be-all of movie informaiton. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Walt Disney have officially announced it as noted on the articles page. And so what if IMDB hasn't even got an article on it. IMDB doesn't know everything. I'm sure they will now, that it has been announced officially.
- Comment: The only information that exists (officially) is the one sentence blurb in the annual report. That certainly can't be enough to warrant adding it to WP at this time, as it wasn't enough to warrant keeping the article a few weeks ago when the only info was a random floating Disney press release. (key word in previous sentence was "at this time", not "never". SpikeJones 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You refer to this letter [12]. Wikipedia ask for independent sources... by Snowolf (talk) on 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Official information about the movie makes it notable enough. S@lo 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The official Wall-E logo has been posted on Jim Hill Media [13]. I don't know if you can describe that as "additional information", as the logo merely depicts the title of the movie; however, I think the existence of an official confirmation by Disney, a preview picture of the main character, and a movie logo already give WALL-E its notability.S@lo 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, official information doesn't make it notable for wikipedia rules. by Snowolf (talk) on 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it is now official, it is most likrly no more than 6 and a half months from a teaser trailer. I think, given this is the next film from a studio that has made all movies that have grossed 150 million +, lately 200 million +,It is only a matter of time before this bacomes very essential. If we don't do this now, we will soon.jj 06:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pixar is a major and significant production studio. Cla68 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD discussion is not discussing the deletion of Pixar Animation Studios. Please give a rationale, based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, that relates to the article actually being discussed. Uncle G 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Bob Iger has released the first picture and logo from the film, and it has been confirmed that Andrew Stanton is directing. The release date has also been announced by Disney some time ago. Back when we deleted this the first two times, there wasn't that much information supporting a keep. We finally have that info right here.

User:Cartoon Boy 3:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is properly announced by major producer, all books and movies are generall accepted once this happens, some years ahead of time (future harry potter books etc).--Dacium 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not exist yet. All we have is speculation and an announcement that something will/may happen. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a film rumours website. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is precedence of Disney announcing items in their annual reports (or elsewhere) that later do not ever come to fruition (the Tron 2.0 movie, not just the game, is just one example of announced projects that never materialized). Not saying that's the case here, just saying that waiting for more info before creating the article is prudent. As for JimHillMedia, while we all probably read JHM, WP has been rather strict on not using blogs as sources for material.SpikeJones 13:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Bob Iger feels fit to announce it, then that's official enough for me. There really is no point in deleting it again. If the project is eventually cancelled, feel free to delete it, but this page should stay for now. RMS Oceanic 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using these stupid images. Recury 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as I'm concerned, a letter from the Disney CEO posted on the Disney website with an approved image is confirmation enough. TheRealFennShysa 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reuters has posted new of the announcement now as well - link is here, as someone's posted on the page. TheRealFennShysa 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Statements made by corporate executives are inherently "speculative and forward-looking". If actual work begins on the film, there will be press-releases issued and information will be made available to entertainment industry press. A comment by an executive who has no actual role in the production of the film cannot be taken as confirmation of anything. --Lee Vonce 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is Pixar animation Studios. If there are pictures of it about and the CEO of its head company announces it, it is real. Pixar's animated films take 4+ years to make. I highly doubt they will get over 2 years into production on a film and then dump it. I have even heard word about 2 years ago that they were already making models of the characters. If they are that far, it costs a lot of money ot make those models. They are not going to waste money on a movie they are possibly not going to release. Even one of the animators at Pixar said on his blog that he is working on the film after Ratatouille, being Wall-E. This film WILL be released in 2008, no matter what you say and you are going to be proved wrong. And before any film goes ahead a film studio, the chief creative officer runs it by the CEO of the company. In which case John Lasseter from Pixar who is Chief Creative Officer at both studios would have reported it to the CEO of Disney, and he has had the greenlight to announce it.

Keep The article may discuss a future project, but along with the announcement was released a still from the film featuring the main character, and the official logo has appeared at other sources. This should be evidence enough to the production of this film. --Ridesim 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient sources at this point. NawlinWiki 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of proposed Disney films to which we might re-direct this article? In the absence of such, Delete, as article does not assert coverage by independent sources, only a press release by the makers. Eludium-q36 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed is way below this. this film has probably been in production for 3-4 years, they are "announcing" it now jj 19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough evidence at this point. It's clear they are working on this film. Rhindle The Red 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Variety has also posted an article regarding WALL• E [14]. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was the first time that Jim Morris' role as producer in this film was mentioned, and that it was not announced in Bob Iger's letter to shareholders (which would mean that we have some additional information regarding the project). S@lo 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All the stupid thumb images have been removed from this discussion. Please think twice before you get anymore urges to use images on Afd (read: don't do it). --- RockMFR 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - official announcement, image, media attention, and now an exact release date (June 27, 2008 - from the Variety article). This seems pretty solid. Esn 10:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an afterthought (comment): High-cost animated films like this one take many years to make (around 4-5), so a release date within a year and a half means that the film is already well into production. Esn 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Nothing more to say, it's official! Update: And now IMDb lists the film too! Chris1219 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - For someone who wants to know what WALL-E is, this page is quit useful. cpicon92 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure it needs it saying anymore but the other few times this was created were a little too speculative but it is now official and should be kept. (Emperor 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep dozens of Google news hits (most of which regurgitate the information in the letter to shareholders but are not reprints of it). As has been pointed out above, is certainly already in production given the schedule. Eluchil404 08:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I think notability was clearly established by Wafulz and no other reason was given for deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Thinker[edit]

Not notable per WP:WEB —Ashley Y 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ::mikm t 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable! Xiner (talk, email) 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before instantly claiming non-notability, check for sources. This online paper has been mentioned numerous times in various news sources:
- Conservative voice
- Conservative voice
- Calgary Sun
- [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53548 WorldNetDaily]
- Lifenews.com
- Assertion (likely true) that Rush Limbaugh uses them as a source. I got a Google news hit from that site, but it needs a member login
Anyway, try to concentrate on reliable sources and verifiability before quickly passing judgement on notability. --Wafulz 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May pass criterion 3 of WP:WEB as RealClearPolitics regularly publishes American Thinker columns[15] because I am unsure if RealClearPolitics would satisfy that requirement and to avoid WP:COI I stay neutral.--RWR8189 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure whether Real Clear Politics is sufficiently notable for criterion 3, as note 7 down the bottom says "Such distributions should be nontrivial". However, I can confirm that the articles are republished there as I randomly picked an entry from your search query [16] and it originates on americanthinker.com. A "Christopher Chantrill" is an author that was recently publishing articles on both American Thinker and Real Clear Politics at the same time [17], so Im concerned that these two websites are not entirely independent. John Vandenberg 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I'm not sure, perhaps this is notable after all. —Ashley Y 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only assertion of notibility it that it is sometimes mentioned on a show that is notable, which does not make itself noteable. Not other sources or claims to notibility provided.--Dacium 06:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough, given the evidence. ShivaDaDestroyer 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, popular source. Tim Long 08:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Love discography[edit]

Barely notable band that just passes WP:BAND requirements. I don't feel that a band who's entire discography consists of two albums should have an article devoted to thier discography, as well as articles on each album. For right now I think the discography should be merged and deleted back into Young Love (band) until there is more content. --wtfunkymonkey 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for wtfunkymonkey and the "informations" about the band's discography was already included in Young Love (band) by Snowolf (talk) on 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was already moved back into the article, so should be deleted. The article for the band is almost a stub without this information as is. --Nehrams2020 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soulfood76[edit]

Can't see where this article asserts notability. The only thing separating this from my delete button is my not-expertness. theProject 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, ordinary delete. Now that it's here we might as well leave it for the 5 days to avoid controversy. --N Shar 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Below-the-radar band. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as spam. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remit2Home[edit]

112 Google hits for a major company is not impressive. Article reads like an ad, which is not grounds for deletion by itself but suggests a possible conflict of interest that might explain the inflated statements. I say not notable; delete. N Shar 06:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with justification. Cla68 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notibility. Does not meant general notibility requirements for a buisness. No sources, all links are to its own site or nothing notible. No reason to believe full article could be written about the company since no other information seems notable.--Dacium 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take a look at Online Money Transfer which is spam that mentions them too. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with All Manner of Haste and Fortitude Herin Prescribed, with Salt on Top - Blatant advertising, created by a user whose only contributions are to the aforementioned article and the one other article that links to it. (Which, incidentally, also reads like an advert) Kill it with fire. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Yukichigai said. Blatant advertising is annoying.Young Skywalker 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unified engineering[edit]

Article of MIT course, too specific for WP CrashingWave 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination, and courses offered at universities keep chaning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article demonstrated WP:NOTE notability from sources independent of MIT, I'd say otherwise, but finding those would be hunting for a needle in a haystack. This course has presumably changed in the details since I first knew of it two decades ago, but the broad outline remains the same. GRBerry 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Barrett-Mills[edit]

^{[Check Google hits]} Non-notable film director. Fails WP:BIO.

Also listing the following related article for deletion as the non-notable film he produced:

7 men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at the IMDB profile for this person~~[18]~~, it was created by the user "Bdonovan24", the same username that created both of these articles. I suspect the movie's IMDB entry [19] was likewise created by him (though it doesn't say), so this appears to be nothing more than a self-promo campaign. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Correct IMDB profile for James is here: [20]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 07:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB is not a blog, information is given to them by the distribution companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).
- Unfortunately IMDB allows anyone to submit information with minimal effort. They do not verify that information is from distribution companies and much of their data is from fans and spammers. For this reason it cannot be treated as a reliable source. Gwernol 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and looks like the work of a WP:SPA - self promotion in this case. The Rambling Man 09:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Suspicions of self-promotion are irrelevant. The question is whether or not the information in the article is verifiable. It is clearly verifiable. I tried to verify it and was successful. I'm not saying the guy should get a writeup like Spielberg, but he is noteworthy. --Lee Vonce 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; one short film (shot, per IMDb, on a $50 budget) doesn't equal notable. Robertissimo 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "James Barrett-Mills" under WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7. Delete "7 men" as non-notable, vanity. Iced Kola 04:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not WP:N (imdb is not a reliable source as noted by Gwerno) and thus not WP:V either. As Iced Kola says, WP:CSD A1 and A7 apply here, but given CoI concerns, probably better to let the AfD run its course so that G4 will apply to recreations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back To Tha Funk[edit]

Hoax. Google shows 11 pages with the title and the artist, and all of them are some kind of copies of the wikipage Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no such album exists or will exist. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 08:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probable hoax, and at the very least it doesn't meet WP:V. If Nate Dogg or his label release a statement then this article might be justifiable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either WP:HOAX or crystalballing and definitely no verifiability. The Rambling Man 09:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL Metrackle 10:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either an outright WP:HOAX or unverifiable crystal ballism Gwernol 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 22:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Odinic Rite. As Kubigula correctly mentions, all the content was merged prior to the close of this AfD; however, if someone feel some was missed, feel free to pluck it out of the history behind the redirect. Daniel.Bryant 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heimgest[edit]

subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, article doesn't meet WP:V. Tunnels of Set 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator was found to be a sock-puppet < Ekajati < Hanuman Das

Delete. Also likely fails to meet WP:WEB. Edit: Forgot to sign the post. Whoops.Young Skywalker 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: — Young Skywalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge with Odinic Rite as per consensus on talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Odinic Rite as above. Hengest 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Odinic Rite. It looks like the two main paragraphs of prose have already been merged. All that's left is the music trivia and some links, which may not be appropriate to the Odinic Rite page. However, if the regular editors of that article want to include the music trivia and links, I don't see any harm.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goblav[edit]

Suspected Hoax, about some fishermen from Jersey. No relevant Google hits. Also related is Mullacdin H'Sarmque and Tales Of The Riverside. Chris 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NFT. The Rambling Man 09:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely hoax, nothing to confirm or assert notability. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Nothing found in a Google Books search, so this alleged folklore has not been recorded. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There used to be a fourth article, but I tagged it for a speedy and it's gone now. Looks like the remaining ones are not speediable, but they are deletable. --N Shar 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. Not known in Jersey; not in L'Amy's Jersey Folk Lore, Le Maistre's Dictionnaire or other works. Man vyi 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Zoe as nonsense. BryanG^(talk) 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whudafxup[edit]

Neologism, advertising campaign, notability, advocacy Young Skywalker 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The Rambling Man 09:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD, and this term gives me headaches and nausea. Metrackle 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism (and a stupid one at that). _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable neologism. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Guinnog per WP:CSD#A7. BryanG^(talk) 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TorontoRaves[edit]

A message board. This does not seem notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia Jvhertum 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:WEB, no assertion of sufficient notability. Google hits link to various other blogs and discussion forums (or should that be fora?) The Rambling Man 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, should probably have been an A7 speedy really, as the article gives no particular assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Website with no assertion of notability. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep at correct spelling. Eluchil404 08:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ferrill[edit]

I prodded this article yesterday but there was an objection, so to open up the debate I thought I'd nominate. I couldn't find anything from searching the web that lived up to the WP:N "that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" - all I found were term papers and wikipedia mirror sites. As there were 1600 hits for the name on google this has been disputed (as I obviously couldn't check every one). I still say delete - but open to suggestions Madmedea 10:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His name is actually Arther Ferrill. He has (as far as I can see) authored five books, three of which have been published by Thames & Hudson, and one of which has been published in at least a second edition. Finding multiple reviews of his books is an easy matter. I get 70 hits on JSTOR for "Arther Ferrill", another 35 for "A. Ferrill". This includes articles and reviews by him, articles where he is cited, and seven reviews of his books. up◦land 12:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you've found reliable references/reviews please add them to the article (although we probably need a new one with the correct spelling) Madmedea 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are available at JSTOR for anyone (with access) looking for them. Adding them to the article without actually using them for revising the text of the article is pointless and potentially misleading. up◦land 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I moved the article to "Arther Ferrill" which is the spelling shown at Univ. of Washington site, with redirect from "Arthur" --Kevin Murray 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to [*http://www.lib.washington.edu/support/fol_newsletter.htm no longer has a reference to subject, but found another at same site, and added it. I'm reluctant to remove the link if for some reason I'm in error. --Kevin Murray 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~At this point we have a mention in the bibliography of a US Navy work, and a list of publications at the Univ. of Washington Library~~. --Kevin Murray 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We now have many references establishing notability as an expert in ancient Rome and military history. --Kevin Murray 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) With the correct spelling now known there are many G-hits to support notability for the unique name, (2) I found a link to an entry at Britianica online with a review of his work and recommending him as a further reading source. I think this established notability, but more references would be nice to improve the article beyond the minimum standards. --Kevin Murray 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator for th AfD cites one among several alternate methods to demonstrate notability (reviewed work by reliable sources), however, there is also the "Professor Test", among other ways which this subjects notablility is now clear after further research. --Kevin Murray 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Lead http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0813333024 cites the following reviews:

“If you are interested in getting on Ferrill’s roller coaster for a trip covering thousands of years of warfare, you will have a broader perspective and you will find yourself asking questions. Herein lies the value of Origins.” — Military & Naval History Journal
“An excellent reference.” — San Diego Union
“A clear, well-organized survey of the stratagem and tactics of early warfare, true to its sources, fascinating in scope.” — Northwest Review of Books

While a bookseller’s quotes of other reviews may not be credible evidence, maybe someone could research these sources. My online search has not found these articles. --Kevin Murray 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more reviews are claimed by the publisher on the book cover of "fall of Rome":

Marine Corps Gazette
History (magazine?)

--Kevin Murray 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unverified article:

Review of Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (The Quarterly Journal of Military History 127/24-5, Andy Grainger), can someone confirm this?

Keep but rename Alf photoman 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I couldn't find as much, but it seems it was a spelling problem. fortunately Google usually has at least one or two entries with any imaginable incorrect spelling. DGG 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 61 results on Google Books, 46 on Google Scholar. (It helps to use the right Google.) These should provide enough for a better article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benne de Weger[edit]

not notable professor

Delete Not notable; only reference to obscure cryptography subject (though I have interest myself, I wouldn't claim it makes the person notable). If author feels it's worthy, should suffice to mention on the relevant cryptography page. Akihabara 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, something there yet totally unsourced and lacking references Alf photoman 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.win.tue.nl/~bdeweger/PublicationsBenneDeWeger.pdf contains an extensive list of publications by de Weger. This is making me think that he qualifies based soley on the "Professor Test." I'd say we should keep researching before making a choice for AfD. --Kevin Murray 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

676 G-hits for a math professor seems pretty good, especially with a unique name. --Kevin Murray 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve per above comments by me --Kevin Murray 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole fact here belongs in X.509; if someone wants to write a real article about his work in number theory later, fine; but this won't help. (Such an article would have to make clear how his work is more than the average professor's.; which it may be.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable professor. Some of his publications might be notable, but the article at present fails {{db-bio}} except for a X.509 which is not particularly notable. The article has been around for a while, and it seems likely that, if there were something notable about him, it would have been added to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. He is only notable for one thing, but I think that is enough that we should expand on this man who shaped the world, if only in a small way. The MD5 collision that he and fellow academics Arjen Lenstra and Xiaoyun Wang proved is monumental to the world of cryptography (those https sessions with the bank that we trust) and computer science in general. To illustrate the impact of this, MD5 is still one of the most widely used hash algorithms, almost a year after this first minor challenge to its fidelity, because it survived so long that many thought it was impenetrable. I acknowledge that those who proved that MD4 had faults do not have articles, but would like to point out that MD4 was never widely used, as MD5 came out less than a year after MD4, by the same creator (Ron Rivest), so naturally most standards and software quickly upgraded. In summary, academics who break notable cryptography algorithms inadvertently shape our society; software that used the old algorithms are suddenly forced to adopt the new ones in order to keep client confidence. Please note that X.509 is extremely notable ... it is the foundation of "https". John Vandenberg 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second author of a few papers, the best of which gets 10 cites. Both MD5 and X.509 precede the 2005 finding by more than a decade, and the Lenstra-de Weger 2005 paper gets all of three cites. "shaped the world, if only in a small way" is silly. Every dissertation is required to expand the known scientific universe, and most do it in very small way. ~ trialsanderrors 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added game[edit]

Delete: This article is very shallow and seems to exist just to provide an external link (I've deleted the links). ergo spambait. ergo delete BozMo talk 10:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and part of a pattern of cynical linkspamming. CiaranG 11:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any reliable sources to support this article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, poss. OR, neologism. Pete.Hurd 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circled game[edit]

I am also nominating as a batch

All of which appear to be shallow spambait articles created with the sole purpose of providing an external link to the same websites. The creator appears to be linked to the website (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Reference_Spam.2C_8_Months_of_S.E.O.) --BozMo talk 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although alternatively I could see these being merged into a bigger article or a glossary of betting terms. Definitely not single-article material by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as these articles are on legitimate encyclopedia topics, there is no reason to delete. Spam links should be deleted anyway - problem solved. GregorB 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think they are legitimate topics. They are a list of the different type of bets that online bookmakers use: they are at best non-notable product description aren't they? I accept I have no gaming knowledge but I cannot see how to expand them into any kind of decent article (except as a list of definitions a la Wiktionary)? --BozMo talk 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If they're legitimate, fine. But perhaps a number could be merged into a list of betting/gambling terms? That would take care of both the linking issue and the flood of articles at the same time.Young Skywalker 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)— Young Skywalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete All - no merge. None of the information is cited by reliable sources and none of it is more then a slightly long dictdef. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Appears to be OR, as with Bounce back betting system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exarion (talk • contribs)
Delete No sources, poss. OR, neologism. Pete.Hurd 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't see a notable encyclopedic topic among them. Slideshow Bob 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all spambait --Hu12 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce back betting system[edit]

Shallow spambait article --BozMo talk 10:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any reliable sources in this article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be OR. Exarion 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, probable OR, or neologism. Pete.Hurd 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Hu12 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buying points[edit]

Shallow spambait article existing only to hang an external link on --BozMo talk 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, part of an organised pattern of linkspam activity. CiaranG 11:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Pete.Hurd 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE into List of minor characters on South Park Herostratus 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Abbot[edit]

A one time character / tv show in South Park. Cruft. DietLimeCola 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then follow the guidelines in WP:FICT and merge it to List of minor characters on South Park. Uncle G 12:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, and we don't need to merge every single one-time character or gag into the main article. Agent 86 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be merged into List of minor characters on South Park as stated above. --Nehrams2020 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as per WP:FICT--155.144.251.120 03:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeinto the main article, then Delete. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 10:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano Forums[edit]

Spam; written by site's webmaster (Daniel Maldonado as User:Virtualchicano) for self-promotion – note the use of "we". See also http://www.aztlanelectronicnews.net/content/view/104/2/ – Gloy 11:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

I strongly object to the term "self-promotion". I did write the article myself because I worried that the nativists and white supremacists would write the article first and fill the article with half-truths and mis-information. I have seen cases in Wikipedia where articles were written by writers from VDare.com and I was simply trying to avoid an article being written about us by them.

I sent an email to a Wikipedian who writes for the "Chicano" category requesting assistance on writing a successful article but I've yet to receive a reply.

I was informed last night to change the "we" in the article and that is what I came in to do when I read my article was marked for deletion.

The changes have been made.

Please reconsider.

In addition, the link to our news website was removed.

If anything, I am guilty of being clumsy and new to Wikipedia. I certainly meant no disrespect and I appoligise for the badly phrased article.

But my concerns remain valid and I prefer to write the article myself than to read a misleading article written by nativist groups.

Kindest Regards,

Virtualchicano 14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If a misleading article is written about your forums, then you can nominate it for deletion and it will be deleted for the same reasons this one will likely be (that there are no sources available on it). Recury 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED COMMENT:

AztlanElectronicNews.net is a FREE service to our community, readers and anyone who chooses to use it. AztlanElectronicNews.net is included into GOOGLE news feed. AztlanElectronicNews.net is simply a news outlet for our community. The list of writers can be viewd in the "contact Us" page.

Virtualchicano 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "spam" may be a little harsh but the article does not pass WP:WEB. No verifiable third-party coverage I could find, no coverage of any kind other than mentions on various blogs and directories. Also obvious problems with WP:COI. If the website becomes notable in future no problems recreating the article but of course Virtualchicano should not participate in its creation or upkeep. Otto4711 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here via the article - this is awful self-promotion - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

It is highly unlikely you will ever find "verifiable third party coverage" due to the fact that the word "Aztlan" sends people rushing to silence us. Aztlan is a word that people love to hate. Aztlan is never given a chance to be explained for what it really is, the homeland of the Mexica people. Aztlan is most often used along with the words "myth" and "racist" in a deliberate attempt to discredit anyone who believes the Mexica are entitled to a homeland.

Virtualchicano 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:WEB and clearly WP:COI. The Rambling Man 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

Other "forums" software powered sites are allowed.

I repeat, this article was written by me on an effort to head off the nativists from portraying us as a bunch of mongrels. This article was not written to promote/market our community. Virtualchicano 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, no one is trying to silence you. This AfD is based entirely on whether or not your article complies with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policies an guidelines here are very clear in their requirement that there be some verifiable level of independent notability about a topic before an article has a place here. There is none that we can find. Additionally, when the subject of an article (or the owner of the subject of an article, or someone who has a strong tie to the subject of the article) writes the article, it raises issues of conflict of interest. That in and of itself is not sufficient to delete an article but that combines with no verifiable notable third party coverage is. Should your forum become notable in the future, defined as being the subject of multiple published independent third party sources, it will become a welcome addition to Wikipedia provided that someone without your level of investment writes it. As it stands, the article doesn't belong. Otto4711 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if you will never find verifiable third party coverage, then we can't have an article on the subject. See WP:V. Recury 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

What interest does anyone have in writing an objective article about us? Surely you can see the catch-22 involved. What about the link to Urban Dictionary, will that not suffice? It is unlikely anyone will ever write "verifiable coverage" because they believe it would be furthering or cause. That's like asking the growers to write about the farm workers.

Virtualchicano 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, lots of people have written about the Chicano Movement. No one has written about your forums because no one has heard of them and they are just forums. Recury 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the paranoia levels being brought up, Chicano nationalism is already notable. A 700 member forum where more the majority of posts and topics come from the page creator, moderators and bots is not. Static Universe 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Reply

Please do not imply that I am paranoid. Even if you were a qualified professional to make this statement you still do not know me.

I am not paranoid and no qualified professional has ever made that diagnosis about me. I deeply resent this suggestion. Thank you.

As I previously stated, I've seen at least one article written by a member of VDare.com. This is what prompted me to write the article myself.

The Chicano Movement was fine but our community is more about a modern resurgence with a focus on aiding migrant workers.

Lastly, our community served as the main "hub" during last years migrant right's marches. Activists from from dozens of groups were using our site to keep thousands of people informed on upcoming events, throughout the nation, and they still do. I often post the information myself as a courtesy to academics, professionals and Latino community leaders.

The suggestion statement that no one has written about our site because no one has heard of it is mistaken and false.

Virtualchicano 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched VDare and couldn't find anything about your site and no articles came up on a google search. If you can find the article, that would at least help your case although WP:V requires multiple independent sources. To address one of your previous questions, no Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable source because anyone can submit entries to it. Recury 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus the fact that virtualchicano created the Urban Dictionary entry back in May. Static Universe 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable web content per WP:WEB. VirtualChicano, please provide verifiable third-party references. It's unfortunate that you have received so little independent third-party coverage, and the inevitable consequence for Wikipedia is that we cannot have an article about you, because we cannot properly source it according to longstanding policies. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

I did not say that VDare has written an article about us. I am saying that I was trying to avoid a occurance such as this: Afro-Mexican , please scroll down to "Admixture" and follow the link "1" in brackets. This link takes you to an article written by a writer for VDare. The problem is that there is no shred of physical or DNA proof that Emiliano Zapata was an Afro-Mexican. The writer makes a comment about his hair as proof. I have viewed the original image and his hair is straight. Also, some people claim that because his parents were from a town where there were Afro-Mexicans living that one can deduce that he was Afro-Mexican. That is also circumstantial, however, but the author leaves the reader believing Zapata was Afro-Mexican. He was not. My daughters were born in Los Angeles, CA where there is a large African American community, this does not make my daughters African American. Although there were and are Afro-Mexicans who deserve there rightfully earned place in Mexican history, Emiliano Zapata was an indigenous, Nahua speaking person.

I simply took the initiative to write the article myself before someone else came along to intentionally write an article that isn't accurate.

Also, I would like to add that we are separate from the above Chicano Nationalist article mentioned in that we do not espouse a "ethnocracy". We believe in a multi-cultural, democratic, center-left nation.

The article I wrote was still incomplete as I fully intended to address false notions of "reconquista" and so on.

Virtualchicano 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get it. You can't just come up with whatever you want and write it on here (there are plenty of other sites that let you do that). Even if it's true, and I don't contend that anything written in the article isn't, it isn't verifiable by reliable sources. Since it is your site, it is natural to think that you would qualify as a reliable source for this information. But according to Wikipedia's policies, you don't. That you are afraid someone that someone will write an attack article about is none of our concern. Recury 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although he does have a point that neither the Emiliano Zapata page or it's talk reference him as Afro-Mexican. Static Universe 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but it has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept or deleted: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure the article doesn't meet any of the policies; it doesn't even come close. But what you have to remember is that Emiliano Zapata was not Afro-Mexican. He was an indigenous, Nahua speaker. So he's indigenous, not Afro-Mexican. Think about that. So, if Emiliano Zapata is not Afro-Mexican, you must keep. Oh, yeah. Delete. JChap2007 05:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N Fails WP:WEB Problems with WP:COI.--155.144.251.120 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Recury. GassyGuy 05:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EPAM Systems[edit]

Tagged for deletion as WP:CSD#G11, and it is undoubtedly horriibly spammy, but the subject looks as if it might be notable. That may just be because few advertisements actively promote the subject's lack of importance. Please review. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedia and definitely deserves its Cleanup tag, but other articles with similar tone such as Linksys grew into useful content. When an editor who knows enough about this company to expand it appears, this article will mature as well. Subject appears to pass WP:N. Flakeloaf 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Couldn't find anything published by a significant media outlet using google. Saganaki- 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [21] here means that there's ongoing editing at this page. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as edited and sourced. Article now clearly meets notability guidelines. It's amazing what the impetus of AfD can spur.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Mortgage[edit]

Left message in discussion:~Sb1920alk

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. No idea if the assertion ios credible, certainly as a private company it is not a shoo-in for WP:CORP. Distinctly promotional in tone and lacks independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like advertising to me.Young Skywalker 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compares to other mortgage companies entries. Would like to see more small companies with entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.89.54 (talk • contribs)

Delete The assertion of notability seems weak. Being comparable to another entry is not a reason to keep or remove this one. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dribbling wizards[edit]

Poorly-defined criteria for inclusion; "wizard" is a rather subjective term. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as the point made by the nom, this is surely original research and unverifiable, and in any case is not particularly encyclopaedic. --John24601 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, wizard is subjective, as is dribbling. The Rambling Man 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why do we need a list of old men with spittle on their beards? Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but add to that list of deleted articles with funny titles, if that even still exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it is. WP:DAFT I can't add it myself because I'm beyond a word-filter that blocks a page entirely if there's too many 'inappropriate' words on a page, as is apparantly the case with WP:DAFT. Do it for me, would you? -Toptomcat 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Thanks for finding it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defined list which serves no purpose, no prejudice against a similar list which includes some criteria for inclusion and is referenced. Also, list does not contain Catweazle. QuagmireDog 14:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons above and that there seems to be no criteria for who is included in the list. Nehrams2020 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE and MOVE to List of chess openings named after places (Although the Slav openings don't meet that critera, but life isn't perfect). Based mainly on strength of argument, I think the Delete argument has the upper hand but only by a small amount, thus no real consensus. Herostratus 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ethnic Chess Openings[edit]

I am a bit cautious about nominating this list, because the author is one of our most prolific chess contributors who has made a number of very valuable and highly respectable contributions, yet I fear that the presence of this list is not justified. The list is of "ethnic" chess openings, in the context of the list it means chess openings named after a country or region. Typically chess openings are either descriptive (e.g. Four Knights Game), named after places (e.g. Vienna Game) or players (Alekhine's Defense). From a chessical point of view, what an opening is named after has no bearing on the qualities of the opening. There is for instance no similarity between the Scotch Game and English Opening even though they're on the same island (the openings differ already on move 1, one is a classical open game the other is more modern flank opening). Some etymological explanation behind each opening name is of course of historic interest, but such information is already covered in the various chess opening articles. In addition, the term "ethnic chess opening" appears to be a neologism, the hits at Google are either to Wikipedia or its mirrors. I'm afraid that this method of categorising the openings appears to run afoul of violating the no original research policy since it "defines new terms". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. How about creating a category of "chess openings named after a place" (somebody can probably phrase that better) and putting all the included articles (plus others if they are found) into that? --John24601 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's well-stated reasoning. Our current level of chess coverage is excessive anyway for a general-interest encyclopedia, and no other board game even has close to that level of "cruft". Any effort to put even a small dent in it is okay by me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in the defense of chess articles (I created a number of these myself), chess is perhaps the most studied of all board games as well and there are literally thousands of chess books on the market. It is only natural that it's this board game that winds up with the most coverage on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW, I agree. Chess isn't a fad that will be gone in a few years... :) Cburnett 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you are going to nominate each of the articles too. I see no reason to keep the articles, but not the list. Cburnett 13:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual articles can contain a wealth of information, but the list doesn't have any value. Surely a category would be better? --John24601 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains the opening moves. A category can never list that information. Nor can a category detail the origin of the name, something I think should be expanded in the article and included with each (even if it seems obvious). And, insofar as the nominator's WP:NOR issue you will see that some have references (e.g., Baltic Defense, Slav Defense, Hungarian Defense) so I don't see how they are original research. Heck, I think it'd be neat to include the setup after the opening is done. Cburnett 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am not in any way arguing for deletion of the chess opening articles, or calling those original research in any way. (Heck, I created several of them so why would I want to delete them? And besides my paper encyclopedia even has a short entry on the Caro-Kann) The thing which concerned me was this list, and the way it sorts out the "ethnic" openings from "non-ethnic" openings, it is the term "Ethnic Chess Opening" which I deem as a neologism and which concerned me, terms like "Baltic Defense" or "Hungarian Defense" are most definitely not neologisms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the issue is a proper name, not its content? Cburnett 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's OR by synthesis. From WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Unless the sources identify openings by "ethnicity" then documenting that the members of the class exist does not mean that asserting that the class exists is not OR. Pete.Hurd 16:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that somehow this list takes existing A, existing B and joins them, but I do not think it really comes to "advance position C". In my view there is no clearly identified C that could be labelled as OR. It's just a list! I would advise to Rename (or, second-best-choice, transform into a category) SyG 10:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the "C" is that there exists, outside of wikipedia, the concept of a set of things known as "ethnic chess opening"s Pete.Hurd 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torn - this reads like a legitimate article, but is completely unsourced. WilyD 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the articles themselves, most are sourced. The sources could be duplicated on this list page quite easily. Cburnett 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an interesting and verifiable list. I'd be inclined to move this to List of chess openings named after places; there should also be a list of chess openings named after people. Needs to include the French Attack line in Alekhine's Defense (1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Ng8). - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, because it is a list of chess openings that are named after some geographic location. In most cases, the opening was pioneered there, but play is not limited to those locations. I see them as more "geographical" than "ethnic". Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a category that encompasses this topic. It's interesting, certainly, but a category should do the same job of providing people with links to all these pages. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and far less offensive than the title suggests. TonyTheTiger 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moves would not be selected based on 'ethnic' reasons. If the articles it links to are in the category of chess moves/openings then this list serves no purpose at all.--155.144.251.120 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's slightly trivial, because there's no actual significance to being a chess opening named for a region. We already have a perfectly good List of chess openings (well, I assume it's good, though never having played the game, I wouldn't know), but this is just grouping some in a trivial manner. GassyGuy 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the vote is to keep, I would suggest the article not stay at its current name as it is improperly capitalized (should be "List of ethnic chess openings"). If changed to something more correct, then that's fine with me. Cburnett 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with Cburnett that if kept, a redirect to a better name would be appropriate. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply escapes me why people think a list should be kept just because the items in the list are worthy. I have played chess for almost ten years, and I have spent literally thousands of hours reading about it. There is no such concept in all of chess literature as an "ethnic" chess opening. Take my word for it, or go read everything I've read. The term simply does not exist and never has existed. If you folks feel the information must be kept, rename the article to "List of Chess Openings named after a location." However, I'm happy to suffice with the information in Chess opening and List of chess openings. YechielMan 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR (see my comment above for supporting argument) Pete.Hurd 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per YechielMan. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Jersey Radio Association[edit]

Claimed to be "the oldest continuously operating amateur radio club in the United States." Claim has not been reliably verified, see Talk:South Jersey Radio Association. But even if it were properly verified, and even if that would count as a good claim to notability, actual notability of the organization can only be shown if the organization has been profiled in reliable, unaffiliated sources. Pan Dan 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ARRL club record shows them as being affiliated since 1920. Anything with that long of record seems worthy of inclusion. This is not some group that formed in a highschooler's basement. They have been around for over 85 years. StuffOfInterest 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides age (see arrl listing from StuffOfInterest above ) Club also hosts the VHF Colonial Award. Anonym1ty 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.courierpostonline.com/columnists/cxri062704a.htm for an unaffiliated source (listed in article). Also added reference to club found in congressional record in 1917. Anonym1ty 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to notability has still not been reliably verified. Repeating the point I made at Talk:South Jersey Radio Association regarding the Courier Post article: that article says "The South Jersey club ... describes itself as the oldest in continuous operation in America" (my emphasis). Clearly the journalist who wrote that article did not check the fact, he just relied on the organization itself. Pan Dan 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See congressional record for 1917, the club is listed there in 1917 (ref in article now). Though not a direct reference of the date, the information there is one hell of a support to their claim of their age, also listed in the newspaper article, and also listed by the Milwaukee club's history. With the list of their own club records of presidents, If that ain't enough for you I don't know what to tell you.

From (1917) Radio Communication: Hearings before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries - House of Representatives - Sixty-Fourth Congress - Second Session on H.R. 19350 - A Bill to Regulate Radio Communication - Part 1 - January 11, 12, And 13, 1917 Page=221.

Speaking is Mr. Charles H. Stewart:

"...I am here representing the Wireless Association of Pennsylvania, and also by special request the radio associations of Germantown, the South Jersey Radio Association, of Collingwood, and the Atlantic City association..."

This is also a very historical piece in radio, part of this was discussing the turn over of radio regulatory authority to the commerce department and it also includes testimony from Armstrong regarding the regenerative receiver and patents and the effects of this legislation in the face of the first world war and the amateur radio operator.

I still say Keep I understand notability requirements are met, even if you refuse to believe they are the oldest club, the club is listed in the congressional record, it hosts a national contest, it is listed in a non ham publication, it is affiliated with the ARRL, it runs a communications repeater. Even if you put age aside it's still notable. Anonym1ty 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all those things you mention, including being the oldest, are verified, none of them indicate passing WP:N or WP:ORG. Pan Dan 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and their list of presidents on the discussion page does cover the CONTINUOUS aspect of it too Anonym1ty 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your evidence for being the oldest continuously operating amateur radio club: this is original research. The point is not whether I (or any Wikipedian) believe the claim. The question is, has the claim been reliably verified by external sources? Pan Dan 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale 13 colonies award; inclusion in congressional record. WP:N was met. WP:N Inclusion in third party published materials. The club has been included in third party published materials. WP:N has been met. We don't even have to talk about their claim of age, WP:N was met. Anonym1ty 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mere inclusion in sources is not enough to show notability. The third-party sources have to be non-trivial, because there has to be enough third-party source material that we can use to write a Wikipedia article. According to your description of that section of the Congressional Record, the subject being discussed there was radio regulatory authority in general, not South Jersey Radio Association, which was only mentioned in passing. The VHF Colonial award has apparently been noted by zero external sources[22] and thus information about it is neither noteworthy nor reliable. Pan Dan 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, The article is well-written, relevant to the subject of many other articles on the same topic which ARE allowed, and meets all the requirements for an article. I do not see why other less-worth articles should stay but this one should be deleted. --The Great Radish 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:POKEMON. Also, I want to emphasize that I don't think this article or this organization is lacking "worth." It's just that I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The factual information is well cited and notability is documented by the listed awards and achievements. thistlechick 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What awards and achievements? The organization does not claim to have to have won or achieved anything special. The one claim to notability (being the oldest continuously operating amateur radio club) has not been reliably verified. Pan Dan 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Sources amount to a local BBC piece on Terminal 1, an art space, and a directory listing. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter David Hamilton[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as A7 and G11, but not a clear-cut case. What do you think? Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear particularly notable, and there may also be a conflict of interest: there are alot of edits to the page by a "phamilton". --John24601 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so concerned that the subject is involved, but it does make me want to keep a close eye on the NPOV --Kevin Murray 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's kept, it needs to be added to the disambiguation at Peter Hamilton. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, so far no opinion can be formed as there are no references as to notability Alf photoman 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve The BBC article seems to be pretty compelling evidence that we have notability sufficient for WP standards. I think there should be more research here. --Kevin Murray 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevin Murray Jcuk 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if WP lists every MA student that has a show in a library and a press release on the local bbc website then there could be thousands of entries - just check out the amount of artists registered on his link to the axis artist's database. This seems very minor notability? --MrCampbell 15:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, recreation possible once some non-Harvard sources show up. Although not determinative here, I agree that it is at least questionable whether the school newspaper is an independent source when covering a school band. The text is available for a merger if anyone wants to. Sandstein 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Opportunes[edit]

(Nominated recently, but closing admin agreed to a renomination, see Talk:Harvard Opportunes.) No evidence of being the subject of multiple non-trivial external sources that show notability and that we could use to write a good encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't find any of their albums on Amazon (my search for their most recent). While they have apparently gone on an international tour, their music has not topped any charts, their albums are very difficult to find, and there are not enough independent, reliable sources (I do not consider the school's own newspaper an independent, reliable source) to create an article (many of this one's claims are unverified). It also appears that the Opportunes are not the oldest college a capella group. Srose (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, they don't claim to be the oldest one, just the oldest co-ed one (I made the same mistake at the first AFD). Still not notable though. Pan Dan 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ack!! After reading the arguments at the first AFD, I made a mental note to include the word "coed." Oy vey. :P Srose (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and no external sources have been found. --John24601 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rashida Jones and Anne Preven are both former members of the group that went on to fame. If the group's CDs from when these two were members are used to verify the article, will that satisfy the requirements that the article fails to meet at this time?--Amsuther 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources providing notability, no real claim to notability. Re the question above, IMO the answer is no. The fact that the people you mention were in the group is pretty irrelevant, they did not form the group, the group did not split when they left. They just happened to be in the group whilst at college and that makes it no more notable than the Harvard Ping Pong Society would be if someone of note had happened to join. Nuttah68 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hornplease's arguments in the original AfD, showing that the Opportunes meet WP:MUSIC. Notability particularly established in this article; also the subject of a few reviews[23][24] (more articles here). Note that there is nothing in WP:N or WP:MUSIC that says "local" (which I would dispute here; geography is obviously trivial, the Harvard alumni community and the [collegiate] a cappella community are sizable) reliable sources are not suitable for determining notability; nor have I ever seen a Wikipedia guideline/policy that says college papers may not be considered independent in covering college-related topics. (A truly non-independent source would be the group's own newsletter or website.) If the article contains information that is not verified by the sources, that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. schi ^talk 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the award described in The Crimson impressive? Note that the award moved no journalist -- including the author of that Crimson article -- to write a profile of the Opportunes that we could use to write a Wikipedia article. I think we have to distinguish claims of notability (such as winning an award) from actual notability, which is a totally practical requirement: the existence of enough sources to write a good Wikipedia article. Whenever possible clean up, don't delete, yes. But which of the Crimson articles you linked to could we use to rewrite this article? Pan Dan 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think the idea is that the award (Contemporary A Cappella Society of America's award for "Best Mixed Collegiate Song") is impressive — that's what moved them to write the article. The fact that no one wrote a comprehensive profile of the Opportunes (that is readily available via Google, at least) is in no way, and has never been, a criterion for disproving notability. I think that WP:N is formulated precisely to identify "actual notability", which usually (although not always) maps quite similarly onto "claims of notability". I think that many of the Crimson articles provide plenty of information for an article; certainly not an exhaustive one, but at least enough for a stub. And who's to say that another article - like a profile - won't turn up in the (near) future? schi ^talk 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per national awards, tours, appearances at White House and on Today Show, and Harvard Crimson article. A college paper which has an independent editorial board and has won national awards is absolutely not excluded as a reliable and independent source. Edison 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I disagree; I believe that despite the best attempts, the writers are doubtlessly partial towards their own choral groups, sports teams, and organizations, and I am sure that some of these biases make it past the editorial board. However, this is beside the point. None of the Crimson's articles really speak to any of this article's non-established claims (hence, claims in violation of WP:V. As Pan Dan said just above your comment, we need to source all the claims in this article, at a bare minimum... and I'm still not at all convinced that it covers a notable subject. Srose (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If the paper at Harvard is "partial towards their own," surely the papers in Boston or London are partial toward their own as well, but that does not exclude them as sources to establish notability. A newsletter published by a choral society would not be independent, but the Harvard campus paper is as independent as a paper in a town toward things in the town. Edison 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay per ranking[edit]

Mixup article between Pay per click and Paid inclusion. Pay per ranking does not exist. Old PPC Systems ranked you higher if you bid higher, but you did not pay for the position itself, but if somebody clicked the ad. Paid inclusion on the other hand does not guarantee any ranking. You pay simply for being included in the search index. Pay per ranking would be a hubrid which does not (and did not) exist roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable topic I think, but it needs extensive cleanup and referencing. --John24601 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case would it also be necessary to assign it to a different category. Fictitious compensation models which were never used by search engines :). May be there was once a SE who used that model, but I have not heard of any (for a reason) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Created by a single purpose account, and article is completely lacking in the sources and verifiability department. RFerreira 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism that is unverifiable due to lack of sources. It does appear that the author is confused about what paid inclusion, which is what he/she seems to be trying to describe. Gwernol 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11).--Kchase T 11:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honda dealer[edit]

Delete as per WP:CORP, and dodgy title (shouldn't "Honda dealer" refer to more than one specific dealership?). Walton monarchist89 13:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to be about a single Honda dealership in California. There are hundreds of Honda dealerships. Per WP:CORP, Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores. In a few rare cases, an individual location will also have arcitectural peculiarities that makes it unique and notable. This dealership does not appear to have any architectural peculiarities; it's just one of hundreds if not thousands of Honda dealerships. Srose (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, no sign of passing WP:CORP, but I'd say speedy delete as blatant advertising. Pan Dan 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant advertising. --John24601 13:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course, as this is just an ad. The really strange part is that it's not an ad for a Honda dealership, but for a Chevrolet dealership specializing in Corvettes. Pinball22 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Pinball22 --BozMo talk 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason why this should have an article, with the amount of advertising in the article, I'm surprised they just don't sell the cars from the article itself. --Nehrams2020 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. This is not even an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. This is blatant spam. An alternative would be to redirect to Honda, and salt. Ohconfucius 08:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant spam. I just wanted to laugh at the nominator for saying that "Honda dealer" was a "dodgy title." Get it? Ha ha. YechielMan 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't get it. Please explain. Walton monarchist89 10:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I believe the gentleman is making reference to an American brand of automobile by the name of Dodge, Sir. 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete of course - why is this even here? A speedy if ever there was one. Johnbod 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Khoi khoi 09:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Estright[edit]

No assertion of notability to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete either {{nonsense}} or a transparent {{hoax}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per Angus. Hoaxalicious. Gets 24 Ghits, none of which are about this guy. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, unverified, unnotable --John24601 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, compared to a fictional character? come on.... Alf photoman 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Alf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete; tagged as such.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Patrick Wolf[edit]

seems unnecessary. he's not notable enough for a list like this. if a separate discography got deleted, this should too. Evan Reyes 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make a category. --John24601 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick who?

Merge There's plenty of room in the artist's article for this information. -- Strangelv 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list does not establish a significant connection between the items such that it would be of interest to those outside a very small group (i.e. Patrickwolfcruft). Merging to the article is not a terrible solution. As Strangelv correctly points out, there is plenty of room. However, a simple list of songs (unlike albums) is pretty uninteresting information to have in any musician's article. As he releases more albums, the list of songs is going to look a lot like article filler.--Kubigula (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not categorify as none of his songs actually have articles. They are listed in his album pages, and any unreleased songs and live covers can be mentioned in Patrick Wolf. Pomte 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaSIP[edit]

fails WP:CORP, prod tag removed — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is twice in one day that Swpb has marked this page for deletion with a somewhat vague reference to failing WP:CORP. Perhaps someone could elaborate and detail why this page is marked and explain how this page differs from similar pages in the VoIP Companies category (Voxbone, Free World Dialup, Gizmo5, etc). Modifications were made, but it's somewhat difficult to know what modifications need to be made in order to comply without further guidance. Eneref 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Eneref[reply]

I'm not sure what is unclear about "fails WP:CORP". Firstly, the article fails the criterion "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." No such works are asserted. Of the references in the article, one is not English, one is a broken link, and the third does not reference this company by name. Similarly, the article fails the other two criteria; to my knowledge, it is not "listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications", nor is the "company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices". — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:46, 6 January 2007

(UTC)

First, we're referring to a company that has a global userbase. Why should a non-English article be discounted? Secondly, how does this differ from the other aforementioned pages that have not been deleted. FWD, for instance, references the FWD trademark application (which is hardly an article), the founder's Blog, and a decision that uses FWD as an example of one of many companies that offer the same sort of service (ours included). Voxbone's page references no one. Gizmo5's page references a page of links to client names and someone's discussion on a blog on how cool it is to use Gizmo5 with Asterisk. You've marked the page for deletion. You've deleted links that were neither broken nor irrelevant to the article in question because one didn't work for you and one wasn't English. Your methodology in the face of the other pages and the global nature of information in general as well as that of the service seems... incongruous. I really don't understand what's so different about this page than the others. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't get it. Eneref 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Eneref[reply]

I am sure there are pages on Wikipedia at least as worthy of deletion as this page. However, seeing as I obviously haven't read all of Wikipedia, I can only take each page I come across in turn and determine if it meets inclusion requirements. Arguing that a given page should stay because a similar page has not (yet) been deleted is completely falacious reasoning. As for the references, this is the English language wikipedia, and references in languages other than English are not exactly helpful, particularly in determining notability, where the editors determining the validity of a source cannot be expected to know a language other than English. As for the other reference I removed, the site in question loaded, with a message that that particular content was simply not there. I am fairly certain such a problem would not be limited to me or my browser. If this company has global notability as you claim, it should be very easy for you to find and add reliable, non-trivial, English-language sources to the article. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

swpm comments fail: Wikipedia:New pages patrol - Sobedai

Delete Please see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The article does not claim notability under any of the criteria established at WP:CORP. I did a Google search and could not find any significant references to the company or the software other than the company's own websites; although it is mentioned in blogs, those are not considered reliable sources. Non-English articles are perfectly acceptable for establishing notability (I strongly disagree with the nominator's statements on that), but a blog is not considered a reliable source no matter what language it is in. Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full text of WP:REF with regard to non-English sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Acceptable yes, "perfectly acceptable", perhaps not. With regards to establishing notability as opposed to merely supporting content, English sources are clearly preferable. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google turned up only 13.000 hits outside of their site and wikipedia, very many of them are just phone numbers listed on various webpages. Compare with e.g. skype: 80 Mio. Google hits, or a smaller one Broadvoice with 300.000 hits -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely conflict of interest and spam. The article does seem to dwell on the advantages this outfit's service possesses over a major competitor. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Special:Contributions/Eneref is a WP:SPA, and almost certainly a COI. John Vandenberg 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be notable due to being listed on http://www.iana.org/assignments/trip-parameters (I cant find a good article that covers Telephone routing over IP). Numbering begins at 256, and IdeaSIP is 327, putting it at number 71 in this ordered list of providers as of 2001. However this is inconsistent with the year of establishment on the article, 2005, so this factoid may be unrelated. John Vandenberg 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:RS with not even having one English source. What Swpb edited and did not place up for deletion are not relevant. BJ^Talk 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I havent been able to find any independant sources in english. John Vandenberg 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Ear[edit]

Non notable website. No sources, only reviews repeated elsewhere. Nuttah68 11:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost certainly WP:COI - user:Beckstrous must surely be Beck Kingsnorth, the site owner. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Bill.matthews 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the two editors on the site but it has over 20 contributors across the world and is regularly featured on NPR in Philadelphia. I obviously cannot provide a link to someone's online broadcast, so I am not sure how you expect me to 'prove' that? In the UK the site is held in high regard and has been quoted on press releases sent out by agencies/labels to plug their albums. Happy to forward emails to someone if that is what you require. Beck 22:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 14:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Much of the content serves asserts the entry's notability without describe the article's subject; without those paragraphs this would almost certainly be a successful prod candidate. If this AfD nomination is to fail, someone will need to add some information that explicitly describes the subject and implies notability instead of the other way around. Additionally, Guy's WP:COI concern appears to be well-founded. Flakeloaf 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not notable, relatively new website. fails WP:WEB. The WDIY-FM "mentions" are trivial and not independant as the DJ also contributes to the site. a few mention internationally is not sufficient to justify a wikipedia article. John Vandenberg 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grooveshark[edit]

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. No stance Cbrown1023 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There seems to be several news articles about this thing, whatever the hell it is. .V. (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total failure of WP:WEB. Since grokster there have been thousands of startup music-sharing sites. This looks like an attempt at one more, started by some college students, not even up and running yet. There seem to be a lot of copies of their press release, but I don't find any significant news coverage. Only non-press release citation is a college paper. Fan-1967 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative, plus of the claims of DRM-free are true it will not last five minutes. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. The Intertubes are cluttered with exsiting P2P applications that are not notable, I don't see how one that hasn't started yet could clear the bar. Flakeloaf 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, not notable and speculative. created by a single purpose account, Special:Contributions/Meaganp, and is using Wikipedia as part of its launch media campaign. John Vandenberg 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article doesn't have much of anything to it, but it definitely meets the notability standards, including independent articles from the top digital music blog on the Internet as well as the largest student-run newspaper in the United States. I think this is more of a matter of this article needing some serious revamping than a deletion. Endotw3 08:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question which is the "top digital music blog on the Internet"? can you provide sources for that? John Vandenberg 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Sure thing: 1) check Google search; it is quite literally the "top" digital music blog, and just a query for "digital music" puts them in the top result. 2) the Alexa rank for the site is quite high, and its Alexa details also reveal that the Digital Music Blog receives the highest portion out of every one of the blogs on Weblogsinc.com. I have no idea how it ranks in terms of its ratings among the related blogs (it would be hard to gauge anyway :-) ), but it definitely surpasses all the others in terms of traffic. 70.171.7.246 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The Alexa score for all of Weblogs, Inc. is 9,596, and according to Alexa, 11% of visitors go to the sub-domain http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com. [25] And yet there is very little independent media coverage of this blog; certainly no acclaim for having become the top digital music blog. Netscape.com feature a number of articles from the blog, however they are all posted by one person who primarily submits stories appearing on the blog [26]; i.e. a "SPA". One blog post [27] has been covered by Wired and the inquirer. Another Wired article. It turns up as a "Related Blogs" on this NY Times article. John Vandenberg 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The simple fact that blogs may routinely carry posts from SPA's is why they do not qualify, under Wikipedia standards, as Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment It should also be noted that since the time this entry was put in the AFD, this service has received coverage from Wired Blogs, Torrent Freak, Zero Paid, a front-page Digg article, and others. Endotw3 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions to delete could not have taken the intermittent cleanup into account. Sandstein 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Drummond[edit]

The argument made by the advocate for deletion is on the discussion page to the article (it's not here, obviously)... quote by IP 220.255.26.145 : I was searching for the wiki entry to 'incunabula' when I came across this puff piece. Wikipedia is not a tool for self-promotion. Clearly the inclusion of intimate personal details of what the author did in the 70s and 80s (traveling, sending articles to obscure journals) and a veritable CV can only be known by the author himself. Please delete.

-- deletor

quoted by Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this nomination (from the article's talk page) in an attempt (not a very successful one, since DumbBOT still had to finish the job) to be helpful only. I believe that the article is notable. Some assistance was sought from its subject as has happened in some similar cases. As to obscure journals, unless Incunabula itself is the reference, that's the only reference I see offhand, and it has a respectable number of google hits. I say Keep. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primary editor was Darwin Tallhouse (talk · contribs), and while there are good faith edits, there's also blatant COI such asthis and multiple insertions of a direct link to Drummond's WTC Memorial entrythus. GNA search suggests there may be other more notable persons by the name.[28] --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ per WP:NPOV, besides that no references or sources but one. If thae article gets cleaned up and is properly referenced I could change my vote Alf photoman 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, more needs to be done to meet wiki standards Alf photoman 14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete my feelings are as Alf states. Agree with Dhartung that the article has much COI. Would say keep if there was a better article (shorter) with references to the assertions --Kevin Murray 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per suggestions above, I have deleted the "Traveller" section, added several references, and made the article somewhat more neutral in tone. More could be done, but it's a start. 24.97.18.42 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write The structure is unencyclopedic, but that and the other main problems can be fixed. -- Strangelv 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as mandated by WP:V for any article with no independent reliable sources. The text is available for recreation once such sources turn up. Sandstein 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Tatum[edit]

Keep - I studied under GM Tatum as a child in the 80s and everything posted in the article is as I remember. AlexH 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a non-notable person who has posted his resumé. Creator has only ever edited this article and its image. JMcC 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a big deal in the Kenpo community. At least there seems to be a couple of industry sites which have written about him. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, no references, no sources therefore no opinion on notability Alf photoman 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Alf, but am confident that rewriting and some research could cure the problems. --Kevin Murray 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale:

WP:V, which consensus cannot override, mandates reliable sources for any content. Such are not in evidence. Janet Balaskas' website is not reliable; see WP:V#SELF.
Search engine and Usenet search results are not substitutes for reliable independent sources, which are also required under WP:N/WP:BIO. See WP:SET for a discussion on this.
In particular, the Google News Archives search indicates no sources which seem to have Janet Balaskas as their primary subject, and which could thus either provide notability or verification, even if they were accessible.

Janet Balaskas[edit]

Apparent failure of WP:BIO, Zero GNews hits, many Ghits but seem to be only selling her marginally popular books - the highest ranked such one on Amazon is ~ 11500 (If she passes WP:BIO, this is where, but I don't think she does). She apparently runs some sort of maternity products webstore, and has written a few books, none of which seem particularly noteworthy. WilyD 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only see http://www.birthlightconference.com/pub/ui/Speakers/Speaker_Jb.aspx one article] which is close to an independent source, however it is really just a bio for her as a speaker at a conference. The rest are ads for her books or services. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly source and reference Alf photoman 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve 66,800 Ghits for a unique name implies notability. She is noticed, but we have to spend some time to document --Kevin Murray 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we at WP are in some trouble if we rely solely on Google hits or GNews (what is this?) to determine notability. Anyone active before the advent of the internet will receive correspondingly small numbers of hits and Janet Balaskas did most of her pioneering work prior internet. Despite that, Google still seems to find her name 68,000 times! She does not run a maternity products store, but rather an organization that trains childbirth educators and midwives in active birth. Sure, her website does sell some products, but I don't think it can be called a maternity webstore. As for her few books, they are considered by the natural birth movement significant texts. Whilst, it is clear HarperCollins is trying to flog her books, read about what they say here: [[29]] In all honesty, most authors simply have sites flogging their books - this does prove that someone things that their books are worth flogging. A search on Google Groups will show that she is mentioned many times in newsgroups dealing with natural birth. Maustrauser 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newsgroups are not reliable sources. At the time it was nominated, it was unreferenced and looked like spam, and the problem I'm alluding too is that
- A) she appears to fail WP:BIO
- B) Reliable sources are few and far between (For instance, I could find none).

YMMV, but I'll say straight up it's never inappropriate to nominate a completely unreferenced article. WilyD 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newsgroups are not reliable sources but they do show that people who have nothing to do with flogging Balaskas' books talk about her and what she writes about. Surely this helps demonstrate notability? I'd humbly suggest that Balaskas is far more notable and influential than the vast number of popular bands and cartoon characters that seem to dominate WP these days! Maustrauser 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's true. Newsgroups are a) ravaged by spam, and b) can be filled up with a lot of posts by very few posters. So many/all of the posts can easily be made by people hawking her books, or by a half dozen people who violently disagree with her. An infinite number of Usenet posts won't get you past WP:BIO. If Usenet posts are a measure of notability, then Viagra is more notable than Antibiotics. WilyD 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right about them being riddled with spam. But if if we actually read some of the posts we discover that it is a variety of people in a variety of countries over a period of time debating her notion of active birth. So by looking at the content and not simply looking at the numbers a better assessment can be made. What does YMMV stand for? Maustrauser 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Archives search shows she's referenced many times by many WP:RS on the subject of natural childbirth.[30] --Oakshade 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yayati Syndrome[edit]

I found this on PROD as a original research essay. I did a bit of poking around and did find some sources. I removed the essay and replaced it with a sourced stub, but I'm still concerned this is possibly not an appropriate article because it appears to be a neologism coined by M. P. Bhattathiri and many of the mentions appear to be by him or by people text dumping his article into forums. It is possible thought that this is a more widely used term than I'm seeing in the context of the Indian business world. Regardless I figured I'd nominate it for AfD to get a community consensus since I'm not the most knowledgable person on this topic. --Isotope23 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a fairly obscure neologism from Indian culture. Only about 370 google hits of which 53 are unique [31] and two google scholar hits[32], neither of which cover the term in more than two paragraphs. Certainly not notable. GabrielF 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect could be created to Yayati afterwards, if required. Addhoc 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the little information available is already covered by Yayati. Pomte 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete vandalism (either egregious vanity or more likely hoax, accompanied by other apparent hoaxing at Pictionary) Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hendry[edit]

Notability questioned, this person is simply the winner of a pictionary contest, no further notable info is found Janarius 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the lack of info, I'm currently gathering it. Give me one week and it will be perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywholikestoeditstuff (talk • contribs)

Delete Non notable. There is a claim of notability but there are no reliable sources to back this up. More likely WP:NFT.Obina 17:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Picture of the guy was taken on 12th January 2007 and is of some kid in a school classroom, yet he is supposed to be 28 years old. Unfortunately the same editor has been at the pictionary article as well. Readro 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 45 Google hits for '"Paul Hendry" pictionary' and all of them mirrors, with no otuside coverage that I can see at all. Note that if this goes, it appears there's an inserted bit about this stuff at Pictionary as well that should be removed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I speedied it earlier today: negligible Google presence and total lack of independent sources means no realistic chance of surviving AfD. Plus, now the photo has ben added, it's pretty obvious that the uploader is the photographer is the subject (and this is his sole contribution, to boot), which makes this an autobiography. Nope, make that hoax - the Pictionary editors have removed the championship section with Hendry's name as "completely falsified". I am going to delete this as vandalism (hoax). Guy (Help!) 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 - author requests deletion Tonywalton | Talk 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Party Day[edit]

The article itself says that it is unofficial and made up by high-school students. I tried {{nonsense}} but it was contested, so I brought it here John Reaves (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't patent nonsense in that it's coherent, but I agree it should be deleted. In fact your AfD nom conflicted with my putting a {{prod}} tag on it as "unverifiable (26 [33] Ghits, none relevant, on "International Party Day"), a neologism at best and WP:NFT at worst". Tonywalton | Talk 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has commented on the article's talkpage that This article is intended for educational purposes to serve as a tool for broadening awareness.. I've pointed out that Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. Tonywalton | Talk 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NFT--Janarius 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the creator can produce some evidence that this holiday is celebrated by... well, anyone but himself and his friends. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for all above by Snowolf (talk) on 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whole page blanked and replaced with "WE GIVE UP" by the author. Deleting as author requests deletion. Tonywalton | Talk 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Bartruff[edit]

Disputed prod. Reason for prod was "notability lacking from reliable sources. Created by member of family; a conflict of interest". See talk page for reason for removal of prod. Despite entry on talk page, the first two references are references to subject's own website, and I could not see anything of relevance in the 3rd, but I might have missed something. So I stick with my original contention: non-notable according to reliable sources; only significant editor has a conflict of interest. Akihabara 15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete something there yet problems with WP:COI and WP:RS makes me tend to delete. If it gets cleaned up according to wiki standards by end of this AfD it could make me change my vote Alf photoman 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems interesting but Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News Archive all come up zilch. Can't have just primary sources or COI. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Webb[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NOTE, WP:BIO. Yuser31415 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nate Web is a well known independent wrestler. Also, he has taped several matches for Wrestling Society X for MTV, set to premier on January 30. And since this page was only created two days ago, shouldn't at least give people a chance to expand the article before you say it should be deleted.PepsiPlunge 09:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If he archieves notability in WSX then he should be added back. Simply appearing on a show doesn't make him notable, his appearance has to mean something. "Article is new" is still not a valid reason to keep with regards to notability. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Well known "indy" wrestler or not, he still fails notability guidelines. As per above, if he does well enough in the new MTV show: then he should be re-added. Remember everyone: Wikipedia is about useful bios, not every bio of every wrestler throughout history. RobJ1981 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Expand This Wrestler has worked/works for four notible Indy promotions (International Wrestling Cartel, Combat Zone Wrestling, Ring of Honor, and IWA Mid-South) and has held titles in two (CZW and IWA Mid-south). He's worked for TNA multiple times through 2003-2004, and now He's also working for another nationally aired promotion in WSX. He seems notible enough to meet WP:NOTE needs greatly expanded, though, as it is now his notablity isn't really shown. Vladamire Steelwolf 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kelly (Fan)[edit]

Non-notable, text and reference given state that subject's claim to fame is "Young Planner of the Year 2004 for the state of New South Wales". Grant65 | Talk 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, doesn't even come within earshot of passing WP:BIO Caknuck 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims to notability other than young planner of the year. There are three notable Australians called Paul Kelly: a musician, journalist/author and footballer. Unfortunately, this Paul Kelly has not yet done anything to make his mark so that he warrants an article. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BIO. - Longhair\^talk 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- Chuq 08:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's hope he does something notable in the future! Wikipeterproject 12:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I am shocked that some uninformed editors do not believe Paul Kelly (Fan) is worthy of a biography page!!! He is well-known and internationally respected as a raconteur and general all-round fan. Additionally, he was named NSW Young Planner of the Year!!!!!! Bully Bill 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I recommend solidarity with Billy Bill. As educated browsers of the electronic superhighway I too am unimaginably confused at the lack of acknowledgement and understanding of Paul Kelly’s achievements. Paul (or "Nigel" as he is known to his friends) is a terribly shy and reserved character despite his superhuman accomplishments and contributions to society. It is worthy to note, nay, essential to note that not all of Paul Kelly’s acclaim is captured in the above article. Case in point in the most poignant of examples being that I would not be here today if Paul Kelly had not somehow summoned the strength of 6 oxen to pull me out from under the ice that day...Rico Spandex 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Cnwb 06:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.--Grahamec 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy notability standards.--cj | talk 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uh-huh. Obviously not notable. Lankiveil 09:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euler prime[edit]

No source found to alleged meaning. Other weak potential meanings mentioned at Talk:Euler prime. Possibly turn into poorly sourced or unsourced disambiguation page. PrimeHunter 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Scholar search for the title phrase finds no support for the alleged meaning and only weak support for the alternative meanings on the talk page. Similarly a MathSciNet search for the phrase fuond only three occurrences, all relating to Euler's prime-generating polynomial. —David Eppstein 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm by no means a number theorist but the definition used on the page means that all pairs of primes that don't include 2 are trivially included by way of their arithmetic mean. Readro 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the argument here is that this is an arcane property, but that the definition is useful in creating interesting (i.e. hard-to-prove) number-theoretic problems. The way I read it this is simply a generalization of the twin, cousin, and sexy primes. So a twin-prime pair would be an Euler-1 prime pair, a cousin pair an Euler-2, etc. The unsolved problem in the second section is simply the Goldbach conjecture if p = q is allowed. It q > p were required, it would be a stronger form of the Goldbach conjecture, although I have no idea if it's an interesting one. And from the way it looks it's original research, since no one can find evidence of ongoing usage of the term in this definition, so for now Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 07:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JSTOR and MathSciNet return nothing, nor does MathWorld. A single paper is returned by google scholar that mentions an 'Euler prime,' but since I can't read the whole thing (not that I tried terribly hard to find a way to do so) I can't even be sure that it's referring to the same thing. The article itself provides no references, nor any indication that references exist. Therefore this is unverifiable original research, and needs to be removed. --Sopoforic 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Google scholar result you probably refer to says "Euler prime E" (see e.g. [34]) about the specific Mersenne prime 2³¹-1 = 2147483647 (proved prime by Euler in 1750), one of the weak "potential meanings" at Talk:Euler prime. PrimeHunter 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No loss. Charles Matthews 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to verified name. The article, itself, has some possible verifiability and notability, but the name does not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article says "Euler/symmetric primes constitute a Goldbach partition, which is defined as a pair of primes p,q that sum to an even integer. It would appear that all three terms are synonymous, the latter one seemingly most used in the literature".

Before nominating, I created a redirect on Goldbach partition (a verified term) to Goldbach's conjecture. Maybe I should have mentioned that. I don't think Euler prime contains anything worth adding to Goldbach's conjecture, and if Goldbach partition gets its own article (I don't think it should) then it's also better to base on content in the current Goldbach's conjecture. PrimeHunter 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting to note the edit history: In 2003 User:Rotem Dan included the conjecture in the second paragraph, tagging it as speculative in the edit summary. Shortly later s/he removed that part because of its speculative natue. Also also interesting to note is that the article has since been translated into French, Finnish and Chinese. So someone might want to inform those Wikis. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the other languages have a source or a talk page. I don't know procedure but I think they should be informed if the article is deleted with no known source. PrimeHunter 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they seem to be direct translations from the en.wiki articles. No idea how to prod articles in Finnish though... ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just leave them a note creating their talk pages; somebody there reads English, if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21st CW AAF Mod[edit]

Not notable mod, fails WP:SOFTWARE. BJ^Talk 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep per nom COME OF IT BJ. WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy [22ndCW]Dell970 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I never said it wasn't a real mod, I'm saying it is not notable. BJ^Talk 18:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy- [22ndCW]Dell970 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is a speaicl mod used for the tournment!

Delete - WP:SOFTWARE might be a guideline, but it's still a good guideline, and this doesn't appear to have anything resembling reliable sources indicating its notability. Not to mention it reads like promo material as is; if it stays around, that should definitely be changed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete who cares about WP:SOFTWARE, how about WP:RS or WP:NOTE. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability, reads like a press release. No indication of verifiable independent coverage that isn't trivial. If there is reason (other than the company's own website and PR, and fan forums) to believe that the topic meets WP core policies, strongly enough to override the policy-based guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE, then you need to cite that reason. There are hundreds, or thousands, of computer game mods out there, and very few have been written about in featured magazine/newspaper articles or have had any big influence on their field. Barno 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above item was added 19:47, 18 January, then was deleted by User:Dell970 at 18:54, 18 January, as part of a series of edits. Dell970 is warned that removing others' comments from AfD pages (except reverting the most disruptive of vandalism) is strongly frowned upon. Barno 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete non-notable, fails WP:RS, WP:SOFTWARE. Resolute 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why dont you guys get a life. Stop fucking up peoples pages that they made and saying that it ant notable. How the hell doyou guys know??. it is notable. it has many articles written about it in magazines like PC gamer so dont give me this crap! [22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: HOW ABOUT

Aussie Gamer mag- issue 100.

PC game issue- 150

[22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I checked Google for Aussie Gamer and could find no magazines by that name, am I not searching properly? Do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia they will get you no where. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any verifiable, reliable sources that can be proven? There is no indication at all that this mod received non-trivial coverage in PC Gamer #150. You wouldnt happen to have a website link for Aussie Gamer, would you? Resolute 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Gamer mag- issue 100 is a mag and you can onlyfind it on a .au site

Comment So, what is the URL for the magazine? The internet doesn't stop at the borders to ask if packets can go in and out. Just tell us the URL. --Habap 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a re-posting of a previously deleted article with no new sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21st Century Warfare. --Habap 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you idiot. THE PAGE IS FOR THE 21st AAF NOT THE 21st CW! [22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable sources are shown. The current sources in the article do not appear to satisfy the WP:RS requirement. Fails WP:V and notability requirements. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. As my nomination was technical, I feel comfortable closing the AFD also. GRBerry 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchola Forest myth[edit]

PROD on article with prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuchel heath. This is a technical nomination, because PROD does not apply to articles with prior AFDs. Prod rationale was "Content is already in Battle of Krojanty, Linkless". GRBerry 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant Redirect to Battle of Krojanty. That article more thoroughly explains what happened so there is no need to merge. Flakeloaf 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider a redirect? Would this be a predictable search term? Newyorkbrad 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antipope Paschal[edit]

The article is exceedingly short and the only information provided that is not in the title is a 6 word unsourced statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 January 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a stub in a valid series Madmedea 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided that sources are cited and that it is expanded a bit. The article deserves to be worked on before it is deleted. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As this article is an unverified and unsourced statement, the nominator certainly has reason to put this up for AfD; however, the article is clearly a stub and it should not be difficult to remedy either of the defects. Agent 86 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course Johnbod 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. As madmedea mentioned, Antipopes are very valid historic topics, especially so early in Roman Catholic history as this one wss. --Oakshade 06:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antipope Theodore[edit]

The article is exceedingly short and the only information provided that is not in the title is a 6 word unsourced statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 January 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a stub in a valid series Madmedea 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As this article is an unverified and unsourced statement, the nominator certainly has reason to put this up for AfD; however, the article is clearly a stub and it should not be difficult to remedy either of the defects. Agent 86 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously Johnbod 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Antipopes are very historic figures in the Catholic Church, esepically in the early chruch like this one was. --Oakshade 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, merged and redirected by nominator. Daniel.Bryant 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Haas[edit]

I don't feel that these individual articles on cast members of The Class add anything significant to what is already in the main article. In some instances, the cast member article was lifted directly from the main article. I think these individual articles need to be deleted. Dbart 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any unique content then redirect you don't need to delete the article Madmedea 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm willing to merge and redirect as suggested above. Dbart 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, merged and redirected by nominator. Daniel.Bryant 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Warbler[edit]

I am proposing that all the articles for individual cast members of The Class be deleted. These individual articles add nothing significant to what is already in the main article. Dbart 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any unique content then redirect you don't need to delete the article Madmedea 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will merge and redirect. Dbart 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of darkwave music artists[edit]

The accuracy of this article has been disputed. With an ache in my heart and a tear in my eye, I nominate this page for deletion because of the large amount of debate surrounding the article. We should use the List of Darkwave releases page instead, due to the rapidly evolving sound of the bands afiliated with it. Emevas 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list isn't really helpful. --~Menorrhea 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject to much debate, list of releases would be more helpful.-Emevas 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Eyrian 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Camilleri[edit]

This has been deleted before, no references cited - No information on Martin J. Camilleri or his work in darts is available anywhere. Check any of the pages in the templates below showing the history of darts Seedybob2 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Darts Championship
PDC Darts Tournaments
BDO Grand Slam
- Hope no one minds - I'm changing these to links of templates instead. Makes the AfD log a little bit more readable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smells like a hoax from what I've seen so far... -- Ben (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. There is no information about him anywhere. Readro 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax. --Oakshade 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer game[edit]

Delete Information is redundant and mostly irrelevant. Bulbous 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is a good home for a summary and expansion on the subject matter.BcRIPster 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redundant with what? Irrelevant to what? — brighterorange (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopaedic - sourcing is poor, but some is provided. WilyD 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could use a better article title and a few more sources. --Alan Au 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a little cleanup and some sources, but a good article. Also, please elaborate Bulbous, I didn't get the nomination. Which policies does it break etc. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Important gaming concept. Nom fails to mention any valid reason it should be deleted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move The page Multiplayer game (disambiguation) should be moved here, this page should be moved to Multiplayer game (video game), or merged into a videogame article. Links to more encyclopedic articles, such as N-player game, should not be hidden under layers of crufty teen subjects. Pete.Hurd 16:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems too large and well-formed to delete. Often you can make this call at a first glance. YechielMan 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest that you have a responsibility to do due diligence, more than a "first glance", before you opine Pete.Hurd 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important article, and seems fairly well-written. Powelldinho 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is of importance. Needs a bit of cleanup, but nothing really wrong with it. A lot of the information cannot be found in any other article. --FlyingPenguins 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saul singer[edit]

Originially PROD'd, subject is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and has authored a book. I don't feel this is a clear enough WP:BIO failure to just PROD it outright. So I'm bringing it here.--Isotope23 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like one of those new articles where the author typed everything in lowercase and the surname isn't correctly capitalized. It also looks like he's a simple blogger.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as mandated by WP:V, WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NOR in particular. Sandstein 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War III (comics)[edit]

Article is about plot element that has only had vague references in print, but has not actually seen print itself. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Delete An article about an event that will be in a future comic book... Fails everything.--155.144.251.120 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 52 (comic book), Civil War (comic book), One Year Later and more were up as stubs before the actual comic was released with little to know information. All that we knew about 52 initially is that it was weekly and had 52 issues. If "vague references" is your only criteria for deletion, it hasn't really been held up before. If this article does get deleted, it'll be back as more and more references surface in the coming months. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — That will be a matter for then. We are discussing the subject and article as it stands now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be redirected/merged to 52 instead of outright deleted, but, whatever--Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 things — 1) Speedy Delete this as it is little more than a regurgitation of the promotional interview. And that "little" is the cover image. (Side note: where was that pulled/scanned from?) 2) If it does get merged over to 52 (comic book), it should be kept to a minimum since the book has yet to be published. — J Greb 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to the side note: the image appears to be a mock up, the UPC as of right now is the one that should run on the variant cover of Justice Society of America vol. 3, #3. — J Greb 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... Addhoc 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex[edit]

Delete : neologism JoJan 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Looks like prod material. Flakeloaf 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The Rambling Man 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Gan fon 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. (Shouldn't it be 'TEH SEX' in the first place? Or 'teh sexx0r'?) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to better than sex? Nah, probably not. But is an idea. Mathmo ^Talk 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains whose identity as such is a spoiler[edit]

Subjective listcruft, violates WP:OR and WP:POV. Spoiler to who? Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete total listcruft Madmedea 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and yes, spoiler for whom? The Rambling Man 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well I used to work on the List of villains. But you are right so please delete it. Lord Nox 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for this subjective cruft. Wryspy 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Vaguely reminds me of an AfD that resulted in the deletion of a list of movies with twist endings. Agent 86 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orh Do[edit]

Delete : neologism JoJan 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Should probably have been a prod. Flakeloaf 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. If we're being cautious then WP:NFT or WP:NEO, you choose. The Rambling Man 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NEO if not for nonsense. Wryspy 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in The King of Queens[edit]

Delete trivia. This article, which needs serious cleanup and verification, is crufty trivia that serves little purpose. Wryspy 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, possibly salvage some detail for the The King of Queens page? The Rambling Man 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia; we're not out to recreate IMDB. Agent 86 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first two characters mentioned on this page have their first names given as "Unknown" and "Unknown". There's not enough information here to warrant an article. --Metropolitan90 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, maybe it can be recreated if the claim to notability comes true. ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad W. Smathers[edit]

Non-notable actor who clearly fails WP:BIO. An earlier Prod tag was removed. Original author was a sockpuppet account which has been indef blocked Gwernol 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly on the bleeding edge of notability but he's got legitimate credits so I say leave him in. --Lee Vonce 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a couple of TV appearances and some indie movies without articles do not add up to notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: If he's got legitimate credits, he is inherently notable. --Lee Vonce 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The relevant standard for notability on Wikipedia is WP:BIO. I still haven't seen any evidence that Chad Smathers meets the criteria laid out there. If you disagree that this standard is appropriate, you are welcome to change it if a consensus of editors agree on the standard's talk page. Otherwise, that's the guideline we use and you'll need to present evidence here that the Smathers meets the existing standard. Gwernol 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any "standards" there. I see guidelines and suggestions. However, the fact that he's listed in IMDB is good enough. IMDB is a credible source and his presence there is verifiable. Also, I don't see how wikipedia is better for removing entries on people of questionable notability. Why not err on the side of caution and include him? --Lee Vonce 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Guidelines are standards in Wikipedia. IMDB is not a reliable source since anyone can edit it. Gwernol 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how you figure that "guidelines are standards" but you're incorrect about IMDB being an "anyone can edit it" source. Information has to be submitted for inclusion and verified by IMDB admins before it will be accepted. That makes it a more reliable source than wikipedia. I'd also point out that many other wikpedia articles cite IMDB as a source. So why can't this article do it? --Lee Vonce 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability test, article also lacks pertinent information that would make it encyclopedic (such as age, where he was born, etc). Even if he was notable the article needs a re-write. Tomstdenis 14:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artard[edit]

Not a proper article; perhaps merge to the main South Park article. LoganK 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. At best it's cruft. Flakeloaf 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.--155.144.251.120 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Southparkcruft. -- Vary | Talk 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, nothing mroe than saying it came from South Park - and that doesn't make it any more notable than a can of Cream of Chicken soup on my desk. --Dennisthe2 08:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into a suitable South Park article. Mathmo ^Talk 08:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. I find it somewhat interesting those who wished to delete the article were both IPs. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why the lucky stiff[edit]

Originally PROD'd with the reason that the subject did not find himself to be notable. I'd prefer if this was decided based on WP:BIO, which he may meet. Bringing to AfD for consensus.--Isotope23 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I have a moderate interest in Ruby and decided to look up 'why the lucky stiff' in the Wikipedia and was glad to find the aticle. He's definitely a well known figure in the Ruby community and has had a large influence on it.
Keep. chocolateboy 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notibiliy with external links. Writing some software is not notable unless there are media mentions etc. Some please also AFD Why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby with this article as it is a unnotable book.--155.144.251.120 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- W(p)GtR, despite of the fact that it's not complete, is one of the best-known Ruby guides/tutorials. Not really all that sure about the author. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat weak keep A lot of people think they're not notable enough. A lot of people have greater minds than anything written on fixed medium can possibly reflect. The facts that you can say and can source according to WP's policies don't really make him sound too impressive. I agree in that there's not really all that many facts that can be said about him, except for the fact that if you mention the name to any Ruby programmer, they've probably heard the name. I don't think he has been involved in really damn important breakthroughs, but we do have articles about people who have even less important stuff done. In conclusion, biography articles are boring. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. Despite _why's modesty, he is quite notable in the Ruby programming community. His Poignant Guide is probably the most recommended beginner's guide to Ruby after the pickaxe book (Programming Ruby, by Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt). And yes, he and his software are talked about in articles and books (including the pickaxe). --OinkOink 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. W(p)GtR is an important ruby book. Furthermore his contributions to Ruby and programming in general are not done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.49.164.17 (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I respect why's modesty, and humility, but his contributions to the Ruby community and the web software community in general are significant enough to merit an article here. It's not just the Poignant Guide, but also Markaby, Camping, Hpricot, and maybe sometime soon Sandbox that carve him a small page of record here. We might foster more goodwill with the subject of the article if we respect his modesty and remove the image, though I think it is not inappropriate on its own. Klondike 07:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cool guy, but not notable for an encyclopedia. 128.175.205.133 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep. Quite important figure in the Ruby community - if Ruby is notable, _why is notable. _ℑilver§^ℑide 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep. The Poignant Guide is a work of art and a damn good book on programming. It may not have an ISBN number, but I suggest you read the book and then decide if the author isn't worth a Wikipedia page. Also, Why wrote Syck, a library that is included in the Ruby language. Kristleifur 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's borderline whether it should or shouldn't be here - but since _why doesn't want to have an article on him, I think that it's okay to delete it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.208.7.240 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Definitely keep. Besides a great book on Ruby, he designed a tutorial that even other heavier name brands such as Python do not have. I've heard mainframes used to have a 'Learn' program that helped prod users along, and then would help them write new programs without ever knowing a thing about C. (Read: an interactive javascript ruby console that guides users through some parts of ruby... minus the mainframe and 90% of the web can use) User:phreaki

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobsleigh at the 1960 Winter Olympics[edit]

This article does not contain anything that the main articles at 1960 Winter Olympics and Bobsleigh at the Winter Olympics don't already say. Note that the navigation box already excludes this year, as per the standard style we have adopted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics. The article is already virtually orphaned. I had hoped to use prod to quickly delete this article, but an admin disagreed, so it's up for AFD now. Andrwsc 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can this just be included within the article about the 1960 Winter Olympics? No reason for a whole article on two lines that will probably never be expanded much further. Nehrams2020 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It already is included in those two other articles (that's my point). Andrwsc 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not part of a series since no event took place. Information already contained in relevant articles. Punkmorten 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not merit an article. --RebSkii 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Navou ^banter 03:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdly excessive detail. The article is unverifiable original research. One Night In Hackney 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling attacks[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Strong Keep: Wrestling holds and moves are a vary large part of professional wrestling... the terms are widley known and descriptions are necessary. If you were to remove these then you would also have to consider removing all Grappling position articles refering to their MMA use. Though i agree more needs to be done to cite references but that is posssible and could be made a priority for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. --- Paulley 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as for the original research idea.. it took me 5 minutes to add a reasonable reference to several of the main move artcles (DeathValleyDriver.com's BBBoWM page 1 2 3 is previous research into the subject)

Comment Those are links to a wrestling fan site and an unreliable source, and what you're linking to is original research. You can't reference original research by linking to more original research. One Night In Hackney 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: but its a start.. i agree more needs to be done esspecially for specific parts but removing them completely isnt gonna help -- Paulley 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Detail is a bad thing? More references would be a good thing, obviously, but that's no reason to wholly get rid of all of these pages like this. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being unverifiable original research is a fully legitimate reason to get rid of these articles. One Night In Hackney 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Keep~~ Merge per Paulley. Punch (strike) doesn't cite its references either but it can hardly be considered "original research". There is no authoritative manual on "how to wrestle"; these techniques are taught by word-of-mouth and through direct observation of professionals. The level of detail in the descriptions is necessary to avoid confusion, since many techniques are similar. Flakeloaf 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that referencing, merging, and clean-up need to take place, I can't agree that throwing the lot on a pyre is the right way to go about it. QuagmireDog 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. 'You can't reference original research by linking to more original research'? Where do you think research comes from? -Toptomcat 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:OR, and WP:RS, and also WP:V. One Night In Hackney 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original purpose of WP:OR was to "prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas" and to curtail "physics cranks". Describing a new way of spinning unicorns into plutonium and describing a series of ways men in their underwear can introduce each other to the floor are quite far-removed from each other. Oftentimes the only authoritative source on wrestling techniques are the wrestlers (and their commentators) themselves; is there a way one can cite an entire television series or six and put this debate to bed? Flakeloaf 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: So your proposal for deletion is that some of the research is not verifiable? Are you trying to suggest the moves don't exist, or simply trying to get the articles deleted on a technicality? These articles are important to those who want to learn more about professional wrestling moves and are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Keep. TheDingbat 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles fail to meet several Wikipedia policies, which none of the keep !votes have managed to address so far. If the information can be verified, please supply reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If time is taken other research is sure to be found, as for the Big, Big, Book of Wrestling Moves, it is a collaboration of several people researching into the subject along with infomation provided from other sources like "Lady's Gong Special Women's Pro-Wrestling Perfect Technique Guide" --- Paulley 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self published source, it's published on a wrestling fan site which the author is an administrator on. How does it meet WP:RS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Perfect Technique Guide is a published book from what i can gather.. so there's a realiable source i guess -- Paulley

It can hardly be classed as a reliable source if nobody here has read it. Does anyone know what the exact content of it is? What moves does it describe? What information does it verify? The mere existence of a book (which is in Japanese for the record) can't be used to claim the entire contents of every article are verifiable when the content is unknown. One Night In Hackney 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a single article, then remove those which do not have reliable sources, then prune it to a rational size. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained, but have already been said. --Calaschysm 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:V and WP:OR are not negotiable. These articles do not meet Wikipedia policies, please improve them so they do. One Night In Hackney 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please bring this up on a WikiProject's talk page before nominating 25 central articles for deletion. Say "hey, these articles don't really fit the criteria needed for a Wikipedia article. Could you try and get this fixed in two weeks, or I'll nominate them for deletion then?" Something like that would have been nice, but I'm sure that I'm an idiot and that's not how things work. --Calaschysm 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tags were added before the articles for nominated for deletion, no sources were added. Also given the number of "strong keeps" being posted by members of the Project for articles that should be deleted according to Wikipedia policy, the integrity of the Project is highly suspect. One Night In Hackney 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'The integrity of the Project?' Who appointed you guardian of the project? The policies are guidelines, constructed by community consensus and intended to be applied by their spirit, not to their letter. Consensus is much more vital to the integrity of the project than blind adherence to the letter of the law, and you seem determined to take on just about the entire community over this issue- which is an attitude htat is ultimately more destructive to Wikipedia than any less-than-perfect adherence to a ruleset. -Toptomcat 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominating this article for deletion is rediculous. Get over in Hackney, we all want the article kept. It isn't getting deleted. Kris Classic 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia policies are not negotiable, regardless of how many wrestling fans disagree. One Night In Hackney 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existance of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would seem to strongly argue for Wikipedia policies being negotiable. -Toptomcat 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This has nothing to do with what "we all want"; if the article contains unsourced statements then pressure should be applied to the relevant wikiproject to find and include such sources. I'm just not convinced an AfD is the best way to speed that procedure along. Flakeloaf 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Flakeloaf; Are you suggesting that the articles should be deleted because the moves 'do not exist' according to Wikipedia's policy? Because it certainly seems like that. TheDingbat 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I never said the moves don't exist according to Wikipedia policy. The content of these articles must be verifiable, that is non-negotiable, it is Wikipedia policy. As it stands, there are no reliable sources to verify the content. One Night In Hackney 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Most of these can be easily referenced. --- RockMFR 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Show me the reliable sources then please? One Night In Hackney 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would be the primary source, e.g. the wrestling event(s) in which these moves appear. By definition it doesn't get any more verfiable than that for works of fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Paulley -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Paulley DXRAW 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As well as not seeming notable enough, the articles are practically how-to guides. Also, the articles have the aforementioned problems. Readro 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The nominator is blissfully ignoring the section of WP:RS on primary sources, specifically for works of fiction. (Or works of kayfabe if you prefer) All of these articles meet WP:V at levels anywhere from "just barely" to "with flying colors", as each can be cited to various primary sources, e.g. the specific wrestling event(s) in which the move appeared. Some could use more overt citations, but remember that "inline" citations (e.g. "used by wrestler X in WrestlingEvent Y on wrestler Z") qualify. Also take a look at my repeatedly used arguments on citing fiction from the primary source. As to WP:OR, I agree that some articles contain some OR content, but this is neither a majority of the articles nor a majority of their content. This at most warrants a cleanup. Finally, we come to WP:N: every one of these moves is or has been a "signature" move by more than one major, mainstream wrestler. Notability is therefore asserted by the repeated use of the move by prominent figures in wrestling media. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These articles haven't been nominated for notability. You can't cite an event at which a move was used as a source. The information has to be verifiable, how do you suggest an editor verifies that not only did the move happen, but also that the move is correctly named? They can't go back in time. The only way that could be verified if the event (and also names and descriptions of the moves used) was covered by a reliable source. If you're referring to citing TV shows, I consider that problematic. How do you suggest an editor is able to verify information from a TV show that has aired and isn't repeated? One Night In Hackney 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quite simply put, you're raising policy issues that don't exist, as well as a situation that is ludicrous. WWE et al has been releasing compilation tapes and DVDs of wrestling events for years, meaning that this information exists in tangible, primary source form. While it would be ideal for everything to be available freely on the internet, that isn't how the world works. Some things require you to actually get off your duff and go out to verify them. You should always, always use an internet-based source if you can, but when there aren't any internet sources you use the primary source, e.g. the event. (Or recording thereof) This is permissable under both WP:V and WP:RS. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please point me in the direction of WWE et al released tapes or DVDs which not only have every single move described in the myriad of articles, but also contains a detailed verifiable description of each move. One Night In Hackney 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no requirement that one single DVD or source contain information on all of these moves; that is yet another misinterpretation of WP:OR, misapplying the "synthesis" requirement to those collections of information which do not advance a position. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: These moves are real, have been done, and it is NOT original research... Bad faith nom -- Jลмєs Mลxx™ Msg me Contribs 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has all this information been published by a reliable source? Seeing a move on TV and making up a description of the move is clearly original research. One Night In Hackney 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, actually, it isn't. Wikipedia's Original Research policy is summarized: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." These facts have both been published (in the form of a TV show) and do not advance any position. It isn't Original Research, plain and simple. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally incorrect. WP:OR states right at the start "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source.". It further states "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." Please show me how "Reverse Shining Wizard" isn't a neologism. One Night In Hackney 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the primary source is an unreliable source. Read WP:RS and WP:FICT; by definition the primary source is the most reliable source one can find for works of fiction. The same is true for your tangential claim about neologisms, as it is neither a neologism nor from an unreputable source; it is a proper name used in a work of fiction, attributed to that work of fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFrom WP:NEO - "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". Does Reverse Shining Wizard appear in a dictionary? No. Is Reverse Shining Wizard used outside of wrestling fans? No. By definition it is a neologism. From a recent discussion on ANI - "However, reading the article's talk page the issue appears to be that people are submitting original research that is based upon their firsthand viewing pirated copies of the television episodes, violating both the copyright of the publishers of the television show and one of our core policies at the same time". The descriptions of the moves are not sourced by the primary source. People are watching the TV shows, and making up descriptions of the moves based on seeing the moves. That is original research, as established above. One Night In Hackney 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With regards to WP:NEO, you are blatantly and clearly wikilawyering the definition of neologism. It is clearly not what WP:NEO sets out to stop. To support this, let's go over a few examples. Is "Patronus Charm" a neologism? No, it's a proper name for a magic spell that originated in a work of fiction. Is "Hadouken" a neologism? No, it's a proper name for a fighting move which originated in a work of fiction. Are you getting the picture here? This is no more a neologism than "Starship Enterprise" and "The Force" are.

Now, as to WP:OR, let me just quote the text of the policy again, under the part about citing sources, specifically citing primary sources: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. ... Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." (emphasis mine) Observation is not original research, no more than identifying where the lines of a map indicate country borders are is Original Research. Just because information is presented visually does not mean it cannot also be presented textually. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The techniques' respective names and the articles describing them are based on the association between a move observed during a professional wrestling event and the name given to it by the commentator. If the ringside announcer, whose job it is to describe to the fans what is happening with the correct jargon, expresses shock at the "octuple-bucky cokebottom buster" he just witnessed then that is what the maneuver is called. It could be said that all such terms are neologisms, but they do not have to pass WP:NEO because they are being used within the context of a larger work of fiction (see Muggle). I really do think a good approach here would be to treat professional wrestling as one large work of fiction, as other editors have suggested, instead of some scholarly discipline. After all, the "tombstone piledriver" is rarely seen in real (meaning Greco-Roman) wrestling due to its unfortunate habit of paralysing its victims. By that logic, the entire series of professional wrestling spectacles becomes the only primary source. To track down the origin of each hold and throw to a specific appearance by a specific wrestler in one evening's event (whether the tape of said event is "pirated" or not is not relevant to this discussion; "ABC Wrestling FaceMasher XXV aired 32 Octember 1984" suffices) over the course of thirty years of wrestling is a colossal effort; one that is theoretically possible mind you, but not one that will be accomplished in the time normally permitted an AfD discussion.

On the subject of "excessive detail", these articles belong to a Wikiproject run by enthusiasts of the spectacle. One needs to look no farther than Warhammer to see the amount of borderline-cruft chatter that works its way into these articles. Perhaps they could be merged into a hierarchical structure; i.e., one section devoted entirely to back breakers, with BRIEF descriptions on the variations between each technique instead of lengthy how-tos. Flakeloaf 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has infact been some movement towards that end. Articles like Sharpshooter (professional wrestling), Shooting star press, Doomsday Device and Mandible claw (the only move article not up for deletion). Though for many terms like backbreaker the variaty and array of variations make that almost impossible. -- Paulley 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all. Probably one of the most important aspects of professional wrestling and certainly notable. Normy132 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, [35], an official book released by WWE looking at signature moves. Also, a search through WWE.com should bring up some official stories. Mshake3 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect The problem with these articles is that they are obvious original research WP:OR not possible to have reliable sources as per WP:RS they are totally unverifiable WP:V. The names are neoligms also WP:NEO because they can't be sourced back to a specific author but are really just slang terms.--155.144.251.120 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's a big wall of text but go back and read my comment on works of fiction and how one can use the original broadcast as a reliable source about itself, which should stave off OR, NEO and V issues long enough for devotees to start adding some sources. Flakeloaf 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep All, Also, there are specific authors who created these names. Allow me list some of them: Michael Hickenbottom, Steve Williams, Paul Levesque, Steve Borden, Vince McMahon, Jim Cornette, Jason Reso, Mick Foley, Dwayne Johnson, THE WWE, TNA, ROH, and all wrestling promotion creative teams!!!!!! I could go on. They are the authors, they create the names, they innovate the manuevers, THEY ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES!!!!! John cena123 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Paulley. This was never brought up to WP:PW, and seeing as WP:PW has no specific category for unreferenced wrestling articles that aren't stubs we had no way of knowing about this as a group. Give the project time to reference this article rather then make us start over from scratch. Deleting it now would be counter productive. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide reliable, sourced information. We have the information, now let us verify it rather then make us write it all over again while we are verifying it. It will only waste everyone's time. -- The Hyb rid 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, can't believe this is being considered. It ought to be a speedy kept. Mathmo ^Talk 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, "Absurdly excessive detail"? Is that even a reason for deletion for a Wiki encyclopedia article? "The article is unverifiable original research"? Have you even tried to verify it before putting it up for AfD? Years of aired wrestling shows offer a massive amount of reference material to choose from, as do Videos/DVDs (Such as the training DVD released by Dory Funk Jr. that can be purchased from his website), wrestling Video Games, and Books (such as the one linked earlier, and The Professional Wrestlers' Workout & Instructional Guide by Harley Race, Les Thacher, and Ricky Steamboat, which offers a number of step-by-steps to wrestling moves listed on those pages, among others). Given the layout of the pages in question, quoting the required references could become a pain, which might be the reason it hasn't been done yet. Vladamire Steelwolf 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why hasn't this been closed by an admin yet? The consensus of the community could hardly be more clear. -Toptomcat 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably because there isn't a consensus which reflects an accurate depiction of the community's viewpoint. Most of the votes here are from members of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject, where on the discussion page people have been urged to vote en masse. Readro 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My bad it was more my own opinion and to inform other within the project to air their own veiws. Though there are alot of views from people from outside the project with the same opinion against one valid vote for deletion. --- Paulley 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, just for the record, I'm not a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject, and in fact rather dislike professional wrestling in general. I think that the objections to the OR accusations that have been brought up by the members of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject are perfectly valid. -Toptomcat 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can't believe these articles are up for deletion! These are probably the most helpful articles in the whole of the wrestling encyclopedia. Govvy 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the content is legitimate, but so are the concerns with OR and excessive detail. The "how to" guide concern does not strike me as serious because describing the move is necessary for understanding it. However, I suspect that most of those here who, as I did, heard about this AfD from WP:PW believe that no major changes are necessary to these articles. This is not the case. If there are no secondary sources that describe the way these moves are performed--no books, websites, magazines, etc.--and if no such sources are cited, then there is really no way to say that the articles pass WP:V and WP:NOR. For now, I'd be in favor of keeping the articles. However, if verifiability and excessive detail concerns are not addressed within, say, a month, and the vote were to come up again, I'd be inclined to favor deletion. Croctotheface 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I have to wonder if people just gloss over the parts of WP:OR they don't particularly like. Let me just say this again, but bolded: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FICT, and WP:V all permit the citation of primary sources for verifying information in a work of fiction. In this particular work of fiction, the wrestling events themselves are the primary sources. This is one of the most basic concepts of fiction-on-Wikipedia, and failing to understand it means you will consistently and repeatedly do things like incorrectly nominate articles for deletion. Every article here meets WP:V easily, and for the most part meets WP:OR. (Though some could use a little cleanup) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: This comment was intended mostly for Professional wrestling aerial techniques, Professional wrestling holds and Professional wrestling throws. The articles on a single move, such as the powerbomb, REALLY need to be pared down and perhaps merged with another article. I would have favored outright deletion, but there are arguably more trivial articles (such as those on individual pro sports teams' individual seasons) that have wide acceptance as encyclopedic. Croctotheface 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very confused. What Wikipedia policy determines 'excessive detail?' Why is detail a bad thing? -Toptomcat 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT holds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any and every fact does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia because it is factual. Articles are pared down all the time because the discussion of a topic or subject is too long and bloated with less-than-relevant details. Croctotheface 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly an indiscriminate collection of information. It is a collection of relevant and often-seen information from a large-scale, mainstream work of fiction that has been in existence for several decades. As I mentioned before, each one of these articles talks about a move (or "technique" if you must) that has been used by multiple wrestlers over many years. Hardly indiscriminate. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I'm in favor of keeping most of the articles, provided that sources are added in something of a quick manner. However, The level of detail in some respects is, in my view, unquestionably indiscriminate. The notion that I was responding to was something like, "No level of detail is too great for any article." That is not the case. Croctotheface 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Especially with Suplex, this move is used not only in Pro Wrestling, but in legit MMA fights. Aika 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:No one has mentioned the fact that the removal of these articles would cause disruption and confusion on every single wrestling article on wikipedia; leaving moves and terms mentioned on these articles with no real discription of what they are. Most move articles were moved out from the big five (aerial techniques, attacks, holds, double teams and throws) so that they could be referenced correctly (i.e. Sharpshooter (professional wrestling) and Mandible claw) The real problem is that with no central base of information these terms would end up being sorted out with its own article.. terms like Rydeen bomb, Complete Shot currently categorized under other terms would end up having their own articles.. leading us to have hundreds of articles. Though individual articles would be easier to referece. --- Paulley
- Comment: That's a very good point. To someone uninitiated to professional wrestling, an article on a given wrestler or event would be nigh-indecipherable without this set of articles to give it context. -Toptomcat 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Each move most definitely does not merit its own article. Beyond that, my hope is that the people who have been so vociferous in speaking in favor of keeping the articles will work equally hard to source the articles. Croctotheface 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my suggestion to Merge from Keep for this reason. The information is worth hanging onto but should probably be kept in a smaller container. Flakeloaf 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why im against the deletion.. because if it were to be deleted the articles would reapper as singaler terms and i dont want see an article for ever move -- Paulley 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all per above. VegaDark 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I just don't even see it. Why is this even nominated. Just like Speedy delete there should be a speedy keep. These would apply. Documented, notable, fitting W: policy this and W: policy that. As far as each move having its own page...ok wiki's not paper. Thing is if they all get merged then you going to get the people complaining about the size of the article. The nominator says "Absurdly excessive detail" would they prefer vague? An encyclopedia entry with excessive detail, the horror! I may get more info then I came for oh no. --Xiahou 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While excessive detail is not in this case a reason to delete, do you really think that any level of detail is appropriate for any article? The fact that WP is not paper does not mean that any subject should receive an article or that no article could be too long. Croctotheface 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "do you really think that any level of detail is appropriate for any article?" I don't think that is what Xiahou is arguing Croctotheface, but rather the notion that "Absurdly excessive detail" is used as an argument in favor of deletion in this discussion. His statement regarding the non-physical properties of wikipedia was a reinforcement of the absurdity of that stand point. Simply put, editors of Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to take into consideration the length or verbosity of an entry (that otherwise meets the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia), especially when it's being written in plain English in a way to display the unique differences between various items, or creating a entry for an item that might need one due to having a large number of variants or a lengthy history. Additionally, Merging isn't much of an option due to the size of the meta article it would create. Personally, I feel that if articles like Axel_jump for figure skating have the right to exist and have, as far as I'm aware, never been challenged for "Absurdly excessive detail" and "unverifiable original research," why should these articles? Vladamire Steelwolf 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are claimed to violate policies against original research, neologisms, and verifiability, but the nominator is selectively ignoring parts of those policies that make them inapplicable, as some commenters have explained many times. The rather bizarre interpretation of WP:NEO being used—that a term used only in a limited community and nearly unheard of out of it is a "neologism" in Wikipedia terms, even if within that group the term is understood and the definition widely agreed upon, regardless of how long it has been in use—would mean that practically any jargon term not taught in grade school would be a "neologism". That's mind-boggling. — Gwalla | Talk 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles aren't original research or unverifiable. These moves are identified by the television announcers as they happen, and broadcasts of wrestling events where the announcers identify the moves can serve as references. I haven't watched wrestling in quite some time but I believe that there are several broadcasted events each week, one week of TV watching for reference gathering could provide references for a large swath of frequently-used moves. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all - It sounds to me like the nominator (not a real word i know) has something against wrestling or else NO knowledge of it and wants to cripple the entire Wrestling Wiki project on a technicality, deleting these articles would be an absurd move and only prove to sow that Wikipedia is more concerned with its own petty technical rules than to actually serves its fuction: To be a comprehensive guide. As someone learning Pro Wrestling these pages re a valuable asset, and I for one would have a difficult time without them, I am sure others are in the same boat as me there. Absolutely Keep keep keep keep keep, over and over again.

-- Cosmic Larva Cosmic Larva 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Removing all of these articles is ridiculous. Why would you need references for wrestling moves? Are you saying that they don't exist? Makiyu 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and revoke proposer's posting privileges for 30 days. This is trolling. --ChrisP2K5 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to bad faith nom - it really seems like the original nominator had contradictory reasons as to why they should be removed. A lot of said that the reasons cited are inapplicable with regards to the article's context. Nominator also nominated multiple articles along the same vein, and so the nomination may be viewed as an attempt to undermine continuing work of article building in the subject matter. An RFC on the original nominator or admin action may be necessary. kelvSYC 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep due to bad faith nom - The original nominator has admitted on his user page that he despises professional wrestling; it is obvious that he is merely electing them for deletion due to his bias against the subject matter. Fhb3 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)fhb3[reply]

Comment - Fhb3, that wasn't him that put it there. Sorry. That was a joke. I messed with his page cause I was ticked and thought that might be true. I'll take it out right now. While I do agree that there might actually be bad faith involved, I want to make it clear that I put that "admission" there as a joke and that I am taking it out right now. Hickney did not actually admit to anything. Thank you very much. 63.215.29.185 10:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it was already removed. Nevermind then. 63.215.29.185 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...don't do that ever again. WP:POINT may not be official policy, but it can result in you getting blocked in some cases. — Gwalla | Talk 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of God, some merciful admin please close this AfD and end the pain. -Toptomcat 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still In Love With My Ex[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of song lyrics. Walton monarchist89 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and A1. Flakeloaf 20:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recom[edit]

Old nom failed for obvious reason. However, I believe this article does not meet our notability guidelines. I have nothing against Recom; I am a member myself. Nevertheless, I cannot find any independent sources to verify the claims made by the article, and most of the Google hits are irrelevant. The Alexa rank is not convincing either. On the balance, considering the article makes unverifiable claims (we don't have independent sources to back them up), and without these claims the article would clearly not be notable, I believe the article should not be included at the moment. (And IIRC, the original nominator was a co-founder of Recom...) Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above.– Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. __earth ^(Talk) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nil Einne 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Edgar181. BryanG^(talk) 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Armstrong[edit]

this is nonsense Stizz 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense, tagged as such. The Rambling Man 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, see also WP:CSD#A3. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gantt chart software[edit]

Contested prod and merge. Prod was contested on merge to Gantt chart grounds. That merge has been contested with the edit comment 'This page was created to keep advertising out of Gantt Chart article. Options are to delete this page or continue to keep them separate'. The page is nothing more than a link farm and having this page to stop people adding links to the Gantt chart page is not a valid reason for it to exist Nuttah68 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Category:Free project management software, more generally Category:Project management software; this list which is currently mostly (14/16) an external linkfarm to the outside should be redone as a proper, internal Wiki link page rather than being deleted. A number of the listed products already have Wiki pages. I will work on shifting the links as time allows. Georgewilliamherbert 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any links to other Wiki pages should be handled from the Gantt chart article which is nowhere big enough to require splitting out. Nuttah68 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, the merge proposal was deleted by User:Garybooker. Are you suggesting that we merge it back in (and change to Wikilinks), instead of deleting? Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a merge, the pieces of software that already have articles can be properly linked to in the article. However, Gantt chart software has no information to merge into Gantt chart. Nuttah68 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true; it has two existing wikilinks, and several other programs listed now with external links have WP pages (see categories above). There IS content here that isn't necessarily spam, or I wouldn't be arguing with you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little ENCYCLOPEDIC content here, and Wikipedia is quite clear about external advertising links and internal advertising pages (the wikilinks). There's really only one choice.Garrybooker 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to a set of INTERNAL links, this would be entirely inappropriate. Deletion instead of fixing those links is an abuse of the AFD rules, which specifically say that you fix first and delete only if not repairable. Those internal links exist. Instead of trying to delete it, it should be repaired. Georgewilliamherbert 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, articles should not be mere collections of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication why this is notable. Seraphimblade 13:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely useful page and is clearly not advertising. I don't understand the controversy as there are many lists in Wikipedia of various types of software.

A way forward is to create the list on another site (e.g., a non-encyclopedia wiki) and then provide a single link on the Gantt Chart page. It isn't really a controversy; it's Wikipedia policy. /Garrybooker 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (Please sign all comments)[reply]

Wikipedia policy doesn't require us to not have lists of external links. It requires us not to promote spam and random collections of links. It is both correct that the current article should replace all possible external links with internal wikilinks, and not appropriate to fix it by deleting. Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayinde Bakare[edit]

non-notable musician, claim of notability was that he was "popular", no discography/biography or anything else that would merit inclusion. Part of the reason for removing the db-bio tag left on my talk pge was "dead Nigerian musicians aren't exactly over-represented in Wikipedia" SkierRMH 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll repeat what I wrote on the article talk page (partly directed at the tagger and partly at the article author): "I removed the db-bio tag, as it was not appropriate for the article (it clearly did assert the importance of the subject, and a quick browse of the Google hits confirms his notability), but written references are needed for the article (and any other articles on Nigerian musicians or other subjects the author is thinking of writing). For instance reviews in newspapers or music magazines, or books on Juju music that support the article. I see a few books on Amazon that seem to include stuff on Bakare[36][37], and Google Books also has some hits." Enough references can be found clearly indicating that Bakare was an important person in Nigerian popular music of his time, but the systemic bias of any easy available and searchable sources has to be taken into account. up◦land 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a little bit to the article. Nigerian news sources like [38] also confirm he was a recognised star musician. --Mereda 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Mereda 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the 5 sentences in this article, 1 is substantiated, and that was the substantiation of a 'rumor'. The other 4 are not verified/cited. This is no systemic bias, but a request for verification of the claims made. SkierRMH 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tidied it a little. There's a problem with a lack of sources about his death, but his notability as a musician is straightforward. The UK Guardian has called him "the most prominent guitarist of his generation".[39] Mereda 08:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had a deserving career. For example this carefully compiled article lists him among some of the most notable African musicians. Julius Sahara 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Clear consensus. Not certain what "Test Case for films not yet completed means", we normally look at each case on it's own merits and the existence (or non existance) of one article does not justify the same for another article. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean's Thirteen[edit]

This film does not yet exist, and can not be evaluated for notability. Promotional materials and prerelease articles can not be deemed sufficiently reliable. Test Case for films not yet completed. zadignose 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability can be established from the previous two films. Why can't pre-release articles be reliable? There's a reason Wikipedia has {{future}} templates, such as the one in use in this article and {{future book}} at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. John Reaves (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If filming has taken place, and a premier date is set, I'd say it sidesteps any claims of crystalballing. Are there no guidelines for prerelease entries? As a scheduled (and in full production) sequel to a major film series, I'd say it's sufficiently notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you even guarantee that the film will be completed and released? Would you have similarly guaranteed the release of the 1962 film Something's Got To Give[40] starring Marilyn Monroe and directed by George Cuckor?zadignose 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not guarantee anything. Please do not insinuate that I stated something I did not. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I, of course, did not state that you had guaranteed it. But I asked whether you could, and if in fact you can't, then how can you decide the notability of a film which doesn't exist and theoretically may never exist? It's still crystal ball speculation to write an article on a film that hasn't been made.zadignose 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it's necessary to guarantee the release of the film in order for it to be notable. The article has the appropriate tag for a future release, which warns the reader that the film is in production and has been scheduled, but the information may change before then. Wikipedia has similar tags for other types of scheduled events. It's not possible to guarantee with 100% certainty that a future space flight will take place (a number of factors could indefinitely delay or change the plans) but an article is still warranted, and a tag is placed to warn the reader. No crystalballing is done, only facts that a reader could easily find for themselves regarding the production. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An incomplete film, once filming has started, is even rarer in Hollywood and deserves it own article: The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and Category:Unfinished films --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every incomplete film deserves its own article, and the vast majority of such films go unnoted by the public and history. But those films which do deserve note, for being notable failures, can be evaluated some time after the end of production. As of now, the fate of the film is unknown.zadignose 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are ads at movie theaters for this, for cripe's sake. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason For Delete Nomination As the nominator for this AfD, I'm suggesting the deletion of the article, on the grounds that a film that does not yet exist can not be properly evaluated for notability. As I recently commented on a withdrawn nomination for The Mummy 3, under the heading "nomination was correct,"

All films in development and production are subjects of rumors, unauthorized leaks, and intentional misinformation. There is never a guarantee of completion, but even if completion could be guaranteed, a film can not be guaranteed "notability" in advance. Entertainment magazines, and promotional materials often spread unreliable rumors. Some sources, such as IMDB or Variety can be much more reliable when discussing completed projects than describing projects in development or production... The assumption is generally that these articles are highly speculative and subject to change.

By selecting Ocean's Thirteen, I have deliberately selected a high-profile film property, which is being advertised, which is currently in production, which has a promotional page from it's production company, including a teaser trailer. I maintain that even these materials give us little reliable information upon which to build an article, and that the article is necessarily bound to contain inaccuracies, unless it is left extremely bare of any detail, in which case it is not a suitable article for inclusion at Wikipedia. Simply put, this is an article about a non-existent subject. Should Hollywood's hype and marketing budgets be sufficient to guarantee an enyclopedically notable product before it's even been seen by a reliable critic, objective outsider, or in fact by anyone?zadignose 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some good points here, but what I'm cautious about is the unilateral denouncement of all sources regarding unreleased media (I assume this extends beyond films into other unreleased/advertised media). I believe that it can be notable before it has been seen (but it should obviously exist in some form beyond a rumor). I'm interested in hearing more counterpoints as well. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there can never be an absolute guarantee of notability for a future film, you can be reasonably certain of its notability. Wikipedia does not deal in absolutes; most of the guidelines are left intentionally vague. Notability is one such guideline. While it may be a future film, the notability is directly asserted by the notability of the previous films; no matter what the outcome, if this movie makes it or fails it will be notable as a flop or a success. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By arguing abstract generalities instead of using testable statements and the specifics of this case, in my opinion you have undermined it. hateless 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So by doing this, you're trying to prove a point. Nice. Changing vote. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This film is under production and it will be released soon. See here :- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0496806/ and the official site here http://oceans13.warnerbros.com/.

Keep for the simple reason that even if it weren't released, it'd still be notable enough for an article. FrozenPurpleCube 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to suspect it will be notable if released, except for the fact that the standards of notability for films on Wikipedia are extremely low. But if you acknowledge that we don't know the future of this film, whether it will be completed, who will appear on screen, how it will be received, what the plot will be, and that we're dependent on the equivalent of promotional press releases for information on what this film "might be," then you'll have to see how speculative a wikipedia article must be... that is, it must be speculative, or mostly devoid of content. I don't see why we should let Wikipedia become the home of highly speculative articles, even if it has sources for its speculation. Besides, how notable was Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, really? And what reason do we have to think that Ocean's Thirteen should be any more notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadignose (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. If this $100 million-budgeted film that has already been filmed (at least to a great extent), directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon fails to be completed and released, there is very likely to be substantial news coverage of that fact which would itself justify a Wikipedia article (the article would presumably focus on any relevant post-production problems in that case rather than plot description). I find about 232 Google News hits for this film [41], without even getting into a Google web search. This subject is not "non-existent"; the film already exists if only in the form of incomplete footage. Note that Wikipedia even has an article about Something's Got to Give. --Metropolitan90 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. Zadignose (talk · contribs) has admitted that he has nominated this article to prove a point about unreleased and future films. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. That's why they're filming it in the first place. Do we need to wait for the DVD release before we write an article about this movie? --- Tito Pao 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have been following this film for a while, and this film will definitely be released, as listed above in some of the sources, imdb, official website, etc. This film would be considered notable for being a continuation of the series and the large amount of ensemble cast within the film. --Nehrams2020 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wouldn't call it a bad faith nom as it doesn't disrupt WP more than any other AFD does and nom does seems sincere, but the nom has done a horrible job of arguing for its deletion. hateless 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't have to disrupt Wikipedia "any more" than some other action, it just has to disrupt it at all as part of an effor to prove a point. The nominator has directly, clearly, and explicitly admitted to choosing this article for deletion to prove a point. As such the nomination fails WP:POINT and should be closed with all due haste. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ABSOLUTELY a good faith nomination, I do believe this film is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, I made my reasons clear, and your assumption is inappropriate. This is a vital issue to be discussed, and I find the reaction of the community rather surprising. I thoroughly read about several instances where people had nominated large groups of articles for deletion simultaneously, for identical reasons, which does not always go well. One of the suggestions repeated in various places was to propose one title first which is representative of the group, and based upon the precedent set, decide how to proceed. I deliberately selected a case which is representative, and which I strongly believe should be deleted. You apparently disagree, but this does not make this a "bad faith" nomination. In any case, I have now learned how remarkably low the standards of notablity are, and how naive the general public is with regards to currently hyped entertainment product, almost all of which it seems is deemed notable in advance of its production. Fair guess that the U.S. alone will produce at least 300-400 films this year that meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, and 80-100 of which will be regarded notable without haven even been seen.zadignose 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The best argument I could possibly make for this being WP:POINT is your above reply. I'll let it speak for itself. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in advance of its production, though. It has been produced, and it has grandfathered notability from the previous movies in the series. It's not like it's in pre-production, or is rumored, it's practically done. I don't feel it's representative. I bet other prerelease movie articles could be found that better showcase the hype and rumors you are referring to, but I also think they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's announced and in the production system; with major stars and a big budget, it's pretty well confirmable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Keep A cannot believe this was actually nominated. The conclusion of a very sucessful trilogy, coming out in meer monthes, advertised in theatres everywhere. It's an upcoming movie. There's absolutly no reason to nominate this. I'm still in shock. Gan fon 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ on the grounds that this is not crystalballery. The movie has a scheduled release date and is otherwise verifiable, what's the problem? --Dennisthe2 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make it a Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. Bad faith nom. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a sequel to two big movies and will be released early June of this year; trailers also have been released, so it is set to go. --WTRiker 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completion or not it has obvious notibility and is well known. Also don't fail WP:POINT. Also it is rather standard that famous sequals to almost any series get accepted because they are inheretly notable (look at Harry Potter books and movies for example, sometimes started years before release).--155.144.251.120 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to East Carolina University as feasible search term. I added the reference links to the ECU talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Gold and Royal Purple[edit]

Unencylopeadic and what Wikipedia is not. Colours should be mentioned on the university's article but the pantone colours, let the official sites cover that. Nuttah68 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into East Carolina University (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally people who are interested in the colors of a university know the name of the university and then try to find the colors, rather than knowing the names of the colors and then trying to find the university. --Metropolitan90 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content that should be merged (i.e. that old gold and royal purple are the official colors of ECU) is already there.--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, repeatedly reposted. NawlinWiki 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Oney[edit]

Complete failure of WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense by admitted hoaxer (now blocked). NawlinWiki 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The City Trio[edit]

Hoax page and recreation of previously speedy deleted material. Google search reveals no returns legitmate results. Delete TheRealFennShysa 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, admitted hoax, user now blocked. NawlinWiki 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Carz (film)[edit]

Hoax page (as admitted by article creator on page) and recreation of previously speedy deleted material. Google search reveals no returns legitmate results. Delete TheRealFennShysa 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji Abass Akande Obesere[edit]

Non-notable musician, no discography, no criteria under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO included. Vague claims to notability "taken his brand of Fuji music all over the world" not documented or substantiated in the article SkierRMH 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist seems to be a name within the fuji genre and has quite a few google hits, and having conducted a small resarch I feel confident that he is not a hoax and that he is a notable artist ithin his genre and probably wihin Nigeria in general. Webpages visited mention him as "a well known performer in Nigeria" "the hottest thing in fuji right now" and "the king of fuji", and Nigerian news report that Obesere has bought a million dollar home]. In other words i think the 6th criterion of WP:MUSIC is met I also believe that the sources indicate that the "large following" criterion of WP:BIO is met, and the many interviews from independent internet news media certainly attest that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". I don't think a discography is a necessity for a musician being notable particularly not within non-western genres, but the article mentioned linked to on the talk page mentions his recording history (I have tried to incorporate it into the article). Most importantly I think keeeping and expanding this article is a necessity in the fight against the systemic bias - not only western music is notable! I acknowledge that wider set of references would be preferrable but I think that we have to be more lenient on references these kinds of topics - african musicians simply don't get the media coverage that Britney Spears does - even if they are every bit as notable as musicians. And the fact that the article is expandable is in fact an argument for it's being kept. ·Maunus· tlahtōlli 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none of this is included in the article at this point. Still not substantiated within the article - which is the general point. Please include your findings therein. SkierRMH 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep various google searches yield number of sources by Nigerian media, indicating his popularity there. This article has also been improved since it was nominated for deletion. Julius Sahara 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G4M3: Shattered Reality[edit]

del promo of a nonnotable self-published book by an unknown author. It sucks, by the way (judging from preview pages at its promo website). `'mikka 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert nobility. Fails to have media interest that would make it notable. Being a published book is not notable.--155.144.251.120 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Obviously blatent advertising, I added a speedy deletion.

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

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

The result was Delete. As one editor below puts it: "underground publications, by definition, do not have formal, static, verifiable sources", which also makes it clear why it can't have a formal, static, verifiable Wikipedia entry. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Box[edit]

Non-Notable subject. ZERO Reliable source references that I can find. Appears to be SPAM for the product. BenBurch 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I can find absolutely no press mentions, book mentions, or any Reliable Sources at all for this subject. Yes, it exists. Yes, you can find ghits for it, but not one of those ghits is for a reliable source. Worse, this article has become a low frequency edit war as the link to a Warez site that carrys this list of serial numbers for commercial software is added and removed. --BenBurch 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOFTWARE, WP:N and so forth. Flakeloaf 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability and of reliable sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreliable article due to lack of sources.--LethalAmbition 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reluctantly. Despite the nomination, the subject is definitely notable - popular (63,000+ ghits) and controversial software mentioned many times on the web. However, I can find no references that satisfy WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. Ccscott 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wikipedia definition of notability and the common definition are not that same as I know you realize. Here it is a "term of art". And honestly, I think that anybody who looks for this will find it on Google whether this article is here or not. --BenBurch 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with warez. Although convinced that this subject was notable (Google, large number of newsgroup/message board postings) my delete vote stemmed from concerns about this article not meeting WP:V and WP:RS. However, after considering Mark M's argument that http://www.serialz.to/ is itself a primary source I reread WP:RS and believe that in this case this publisher's website is sufficient. In particular WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves seems to qualify. Alternatively, I would also support a merge into warez as the present article has no mention of serial numbers lists like the subject of this article. Ccscott 15:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)preceeding unsigned comment by User:Ori_Redler
Delete Come on guys, you know you want to delete it, and the Surfer's Serials article while your at it. You cant have something as controversial as an informational article about a program! A program which can provide information that could enable a user to utilize copyrighted software by the use of a non purchased serial number now could you! Better remove it quick smart before someone like Steve Jobs reads this page and breaks out in a fit of laughter :D:P Wangchi 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please conform to WP:CIVIL in your comments. --BenBurch 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete Even though it doesn't have many sources this article provides useful information. Because it's about a grey-market product there's not much publicly available info about it to cite and Wikipedia is probably the #1 public source of info on it on the web. This is definitely not spam for the product as the product is free and contains no spyware etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.14.158.147 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Dont Delete It satisfies policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS because there is a primary source (The software is freely downloadable, from www.serialz.to). It may not satisfy guideline WP:N (I haven't actually checked each of the over 60,000 google results), but as the guideline "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense" I think the fact that there are so many mentions of it mean that it should be treated as notable. If it is not regarded as satisfying WP:N then it should be merged with the wikipedia warez page as per WP:SOFTWARE . It would make a useful addition as there is currently no mention of any serial based warez products. My comments apply equally to the Surfers Serials page which has also been nominated for deletion. Mark M. 22.1.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.208.172 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please re-read WP:RS. An RS is more than just some website. And it certainly does not meet WP:N unless you DO find several non-trivial articles in reliable sources. Right now there are ZERO. And sources are REQUIRED here. So, if you think it should stay, your job is to find them. BenBurch 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the website provides a primary source "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs" The primary source is the software itself. It provides evidence of it's own existence to anyone who wishes to download it. Mark M 22.1.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.208.172 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, all the website proves is that it exists. So does the tic-tac-toe program I wrote, but that doesn't make either one notable. The reliable sources have to address the issue of notability. Your job is to find those sources. Otherwise, the article goes. --BenBurch 07:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said. The article satisfies policy WP:V because there is a reliable source as specified in WP:RS.

Notability is a separate issue, and furthermore is a guideline not a policy, allowing for exceptions guided by common sense. Please refer to WP:N. Also, according to WP:SOFTWARE "Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality" . Hence my proposal to merge with the main wikipedia warez article if the serialbox article does not meet the notability guidelines. Mark M 22.01.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.208.172 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment It might be worth pointing out that the edit war might have avoided if the users who believed the link to serialz.to was not valid had discussed it on the serialbox talk page. MrDarcy above actually suppresed the discussion by advising Ori Redler to stop discussing the dispute. [Ori Redlers talk page:User talk:Ori Redler]. A side point anyway since I believe that there are better ways to deal with an edit war than by deleting the article. Mark M 22.1.07

Ummm... Mr. Darcy is an administrator here... His actions are totally proper. BenBurch 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that MrDarcy has recently been promoted to an admin. It makes the apparent breach of guidelines all the more surprising. Please see WP:DR. "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page." Mr Darcy suppressed the discussion. That is also why I asked him to explain his actions, but he chose not to do that. In any case, this is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted, I mentioned it only as a comment since you referred to the edit war in your case for deletion. Mark M 22.01.07

The question of whether the link was allowed or not had been discussed and settled with a clear consensus earlier on the page. No established user has come along to disagree with the consensus to allow the images but not the link (which seems to violate one policy and at least one guideline, as well as posing DMCA problems). This anonymous user, however, refuses to accept the consensus, so he's making baseless claims against me instead. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there was a consensus. There seemed to be almost equal number of views to keep versus not to keep the link. I didn't refuse to accept the consensus even if there was one, I was merely discussing the merits of the case, not engaging in the edit war. And I have provided evidence that you suppressed the discussion, User talk:Ori Redler so my claim is not baseless at all. If you wish to discuss this further can we do so on the serialbox talk page rather than cluttering up this deletion discussion. Thanks, Mark M 22.01.07

There's nothing to discuss. Single-purpose accounts, like yourself and User:Wangchi, don't carry weight in determining consensus. Among established users, the consensus was clear: The link violates a Wikipedia policy, as well as some other guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss the link here because the place for that discussion should have been on the article talk page. However, just for the record I have edited a few other unrelated pages so I should not be considered a singlepurpose account. Mark M 22.01.07

LMFAO because it is no matter that MrDarcy is/is not an Admin. The admins of course are users with more control here, but they are not automatically right or wrong on any issue. - Abscissa 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This is a well-established piece of grey market software for Mac users, and it would make sense to cover it in an article on "warez". It's perhaps the most notable serial number-related program out there. However, I'm not so sure it needs its own article. 128.135.219.120 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above was left by me, sorry. Nightwatch／respond 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Warez, this is a very popular application used by many Mac users, and deserves a mention, if not in it's own article, at least in another. Sfacets 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might in fact be popular, but where is the RS that proves that? FIND that RS. I tried and cannot. --BenBurch 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warez. With so many unique Google hits (including an About.com mention [42]), it's a notable enough part of the warez "scene" to deserve mention in that article. It probably doesn't deserve its own, though. --S0uj1r0 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - the nominator does not cite any precedent and is completely wrong. There is an agenda out to delete this article. - Abscissa 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:V and WP:RS, and this article is probably the best source of information on this program since it is, as said "grey." This is an indispensable tool in the Mac software pirates' toolboxes, with Little Snitch, and Azureus, and is very widely used. X [Mac Davis] (How's my driving?) 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! There's a sort of willful absurdity to the argument that Serial Box is not significant because it lacks a formal, well-publicized source/distributer. IT IS AN UNDERGROUND PRODUCT. It's authors/originators deliberately stay hidden, with the file in question being distributed through non-traditional channels. In spite of this, it has seen wider distribution and is much better known among the Mac using community than many 'real' commercial software products. Those calling for the deletion of this entry have profoundly misunderstood the nature of the subject at hand; underground publications, by definition, do not have formal, static, verifiable sources...but there is absolutely no doubt that the product is real and significant. --DeeMT 25 January 2007

Keep I think this is a useful source of information about it. It is worth having some objective information about the program, and perhaps something about its effects on the software industry, legal issues, etc. YahoKa 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nysted Music[edit]

Delete - Non notable Myspace artist who's bio has already been deleted a number of times e.g. here. The Rambling Man 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Statement and the following arguments, now proven false by more than 12 sources in the new article. Direct to The Lee Nysted Experience. (also see comments by The Rambling Man.) The new article should stay.

Keep.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep Looks like an A7 and sounds like WP:COI but a band that includes notable musicians is itself notable.~~ Delete per daughter comment. Article refs the agency, not the band and appears to be an attempt to get around a G4 deletion. Flakeloaf 19:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment against false and misleading statements. You have no right to accuse me or my daughters of making up, or creating anything here. My daughters have never been involved with any of my businesses. Stick to facts, please.

Back up your accusations with knowledge and use Wikipedia rules and regulations. Please do not turn this institution into the new myspace.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - this article appears to be about an agency, not a band, and it seems like a covert way of talking about a nn band. The band is called The Lee Nysted Experience. The band would fail WP:MUSIC anyway, and this article shows no evidence of WP:V. Interestingly, all reviews of his album on Amazon were by one-off reviewers, some of whom know him. His band get 56 Ghits. The Rambling Man 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see also User_talk:Tawker#Lee_Nysted for a message from him. This page was blanked by an anon who may or may not be the article creator. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We should also include The Lee Nysted Experience, an identical copy created by the same anon. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On that article my original comment stands: It quacks like WP:COI but a band that includes notable musicians is itself notable, even if the agency that manages them is not. Flakeloaf 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to see how a this band actually meets WP:MUSIC though? I get what you're saying, but one or two session musicians from notable bands doesn't establish notability of a band, does it? The Rambling Man 10:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this page and will concede and allow deletion of this page, so long as The Lee Nysted Experience entry can remain in its current form. smdewart
- Hello, author. Unfortunately, we don't make such deals. Each page must stand or fall on its own merits. I will add my concerns of notability to Talk:The Lee Nysted Experience. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, with some apparent WP:COI issues as topping. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience for more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nysted Music can be re-directed to "The Lee Nysted Experience"

Any one of the following can be used for "The Lee Nysted Experience" Band/Ensemble clearly does not "fail"

1.) AMG (World's largest source of music info.) 2.) THE ORCHARD.com Largest digital label in the world signed Lee Nysted...see link. 3.) 99% of all digital sites now carry Nysted Music, including parts of his second album with noted artist Todd Sucherman, drummer for STYX with Wikipedia page. 4.) Retail outlets like BestBuy, and Starbucks are listed as having signed Lee Nysted (See THE ORCHARD.) 5.) Matt Walker, (the drummer) verified musician in Lee Nysted band / ensemble. Same for Todd Sucherman, the drummer.(See Wikipedia.) 6.) Lee Nysted web site verifies all digital sites as does Orchard. 7.) Artistopia verifies the above 8.) Google: Lee Nysted and you will find 15,000 sites that will verify the above. 9.) Several of Lee's songs are played right now on the largest radio stations in the world. (See Orchard) Criteria for inclusion have been met many times over. ("any one of...")

Truly yours, Lee Nysted

Please note: I did not write the articles. I did not hire anyone to write the articles. I have no pending litigation with Wikipedia, nor do I intend on same. I pray for the vandals that have started this mess.

Thank you, Lee Nysted 1-19-07 8:55 a.m. Chicago time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.148.105 (talk • contribs).

Comment Please refrain from calling me a vandal. The Rambling Man 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for implying that any of you are "vandals." Someone (or, in the plural) has been vandalizing my sites worldwide; not just here. I have little time for this, but it is important for my business that an accurate depiction of what and who we are is entered herein.

My employees (At NystedMusic, LLC.)on my (MySpace site) have encountered numerous "kids" with nothing better to do with their time than to deface and destroy my good name.

As you can plainly see, my band/ ensemble which is now underway; in full swing, is inclusive of, and from, very noteworthy individuals. My label is the largest digital and retail outlet available in the world. Go to the links, please.

Lee Nysted...End. 1-19-07 1:30 p.m. Time in: Tierra del Sol, Aruba. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talk • contribs).

Strong delete - per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience. This man appears to be running a publicity stunt. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:VSCA, per Patstuart above. Sandstein 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Patstuart said. My comments are at the other AfD, same applies here. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - concur with all of what's been said in favor of deletion. MSJapan 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT by Nysted The article written by journalist C.H. should be fine inclusive of the references added since the above arguments were entered. My short experience here has been interesting. My name and this article should be directed to the new article. (Per The Rambling Man's comments.) AMG, is but one of over a dozen sources suggested by Wikipedia for musicians, ensembles, albums, etc.(P.S., I have no puppets. This is no publicity stunt. Just the truth. All criteria have been met, and then some. Thank you, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously - this is a company that represents a single band. Not even on the same continent as WP:CORP. Mr Nysted, there is only one way we can ensure that articles on Wikipedia do not contain anything you don't want them to contain, and that is to delete them. As a courtesy to you as the subject I'd be happy to oblige if you'd like to drop me a note on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Complete bollocks, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Slowking Man 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro-adds[edit]

Neologism admitted by the author to have been made up at school. No sources, and nothing of real substance Leebo⁸⁶ 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the article was previously prodded and removed by the author. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and WP:NFT. MKoltnow 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NEO--Tainter 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Huntington[edit]

Autobiography by a wrestler who is not well known enough to have their own wikipedia profile Hiptossrana 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Weak Delete: i would like to see this article merged into the United Kingdom Wrestling Alliance. Though Huntington on his own isnt notable, he was a major part in the development of the promotion, that would become part of Revolution British Wrestling's nationwide territory system, and now has owns all the names and likeness under his AndiMedia. But your right he wasnt a notable enough independent star to deserve his own article (note:the article was created by himself) --- Paulley 10:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article that indicates notability. Unless we are to have articles on all pro wrestlers (which I think we should not), we shouldn't have this one - he's done nothing special, no championship or stardom or anything like that. Herostratus 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be unreferenced and unverified. Myspace pages are unfortunately not valid references - it needs to be an independent, published source. If such references can be provided to verify the info, then I'll be more inclined to keep. Dugwiki 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Shaundakulbara 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Opabinia regalis 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5to parke[edit]

Does not qualify under WP:MUSIC; if it were translated, it would read: Mexican group, creator of "Rock Bonito". A genre inspired by immature girls, who live always next to their best friends. -5to Parke- It's a method of forgiving, recording the pain created by the worrying addiction, that produces a perfect woman. More or less nonsense in fact; maybe I should have done a speedy delete. Walton monarchist89 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Flakeloaf 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems non notable based on the translation, and lacks sources. --Nehrams2020 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mkdw ^talk 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betting on a Speedy Delete G1 per the nom. Boy, that makes my brain hurt. --Dennisthe2 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, clear consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon Wheel, Oxnard, California[edit]

AfD nominated by DUBJAY04 with reasons: "article is span" (sic) and "It seems rather an attempt to stir up publicity for a new economic venture." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral Tevildo 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been following this article for a little while, the initial speedy request was commented that this article was notable because there was newspaper coverage of the wagon wheel. The creator of the original article claimed that "The players in the story are dead and the businesses closed so it is not a commercial page but rather a page of regional information and a link to the architecture of the 1940s and 1950s." A few days later the Future appeared, which simply seems to be a plea from the investor or the seller concerning the merits and potentials for future economic ventures. I had a scent of that before the future part was added, but left it alone. Now I think this article reeks of someone trying to make money.DUBJAY04 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I may have used the wrong forum for this, but I basically wanted to make sure that this didn't become a pitching ground for a sale of this property, which the article initially was, and then was reverted back to after initial changes. Although I was born in California, I have no knowledge of the Wagon Wheel, and have attempted to edit this article to make it the best possible. I believe in the validity of this article, but am not sure how to keep it from regressing into spam. I guess this was an attempt to let Schafphoto, who previously had his username deleted because it was an ad, know that an article should not be used to sell a property, or whatever his motives are. If possible, I would like to remove this article from AfD, but would like to keep an eye on it to be sure it doesn't revert to pure advertising.DUBJAY04 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd like to withdraw my nominationDUBJAY04 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep It is notable enough, but the 'future' crap should be removed as that is clearly POV and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--155.144.251.120 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of references by reliable sources in this one. Even the ones that have hyperlinks appear to demonstrate notability, like the ones by the Los Angeles Times [43], the VC Reporter [44][45][46] and the Ventura County Star [47][48]. Yes, a POV tag might be appropriate for some of it, but not deletion. --Oakshade 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination for deletion is completely baseless. Some portions need to be re-written (just like every other article on Wikipedia) to maintain a neutral point of view, so take the time and the effort it takes to contribute to the rewrite DUBJAY04, instead of trying to get it deleted. The Wagon Wheel is a significant part of Oxnard's history, and I suspect will be a significant part of it's future as it is one of the most visible portions of the city. Take all things into consideration before making such a hasty judgment. Dcmcgov 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wagon Wheel is a significant part of Oxnard's mid-century history, and it is the most recognizable structure in Oxnard for the many people who do not exit the freeway, because it is remarkably unchanged since 1947. In California almost all the freeway frontage has been redeveloped or replaced with concrete sound walls, yet this building stands as a classic element of roadside America. The original developer of the Wagon Wheel died in 2001 and has been labeled the most important developer in Oxnard history, the Wagon Wheel was his first real estate investment, and the Financial Plaza towers on the Oxnard page were one of his latest. The building may well be nominated for the National Register of Historic Places, and as a Oxnard Landmark in the next 6 months, or it could be demolished to make way for a new development. The demolition will bring with it another flurry of newspaper articles and news stories, and make the Wagon Wheel even more noteworthy after-the-fact. In the end, whatever happens to the Wagon Wheel, the people of Oxnard want to know, the people driving on the 101 freeway want to know, and the preservationists and lovers of roadside Americana are going to want to know, how big an audience do you have to prove to be on Wikipedia?--Schafphoto 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)schafphoto[reply]
Keep. If the city is studying an Environmental Impact Report on the structure, it may very well be eligible for some kind of historic preservation. Even if it isn't, the building still appears to have enough history to make it notable. Maybe some cleanup is necessary, but outright deletion isn't. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schachter[edit]

No sources given or found on this guy. Googling for "Michael Schachter" + nintendo and Michael + Schachter + nintendo has yielded nothing at all relevant to this individual. Delete as not verifiable and failing WP:BIO. Wickethewok 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS. Budgiekiller 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like copyvio, lists to starbord under the weight of its POV, also fails WP:V. Flakeloaf 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is no evidence that he was ever associated with Nintendo. He was never the Vice-President of the company which most likely makes this a vandalism case. Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. No sources. Probably not notable even if its true.--155.144.251.120 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep by clear consensus. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Evans[edit]

Neutral bump up from A7 speedy. Assertion to notability is on talk page. No opinion. Kchase T 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - manager of a professional football club, coaching them to their only league trophy to date. Easily satisfies WP:BIO under the professional sportsperson guideline. Qwghlm 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable figure in Blackpool history. References in order. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Managed at the highest level in English football. Oldelpaso 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Mkdw ^talk 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Keep as per all above. Why on earth was this article ever listed for speedy deletion? Wikipedia needs more articles about players/managers from this era, not deletions.Daemonic Kangaroo 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any league manager is notable enough. ArtVandelay13 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a manager of a professional league football team, and more than that, one of the most notable figures in the history of this particular football team Robotforaday 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the circumstances surrounding this nomination, it seems quite possible that the initial speedy tag which led to this afd was not in good faith. Robotforaday 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteable as manager of very noteable team. There is a whole list of managers for this team with pages for all of them so that backs up that afd was not in good faith considering no reason was given.--155.144.251.120 02:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. BlueValour 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy deletion not in good faith. --Park70 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of a fallen age[edit]

No assertion of notability based on WP:BAND; prod was removed. This is band formed within the last year that doesn't currently have any albums released (with one in the pipeline). Also, one of the criteria based on past members does not apply, since Winter Solstice also appears as non-notable.-- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom non notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be deleted under WP:SPEEDY and fails WP:BAND. Mkdw ^talk 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7, non-notable band. –Llama man 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 non notable.--155.144.251.120 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can say that all you want but there are 1000's of bands on here that aren't as notable as Ghost Of A Fallen Age. Yes the album may be in the "pipeline" but on Smartpunk @ this link: [49] you can see that out of all the albums they sell Ghost Of A Fallen Age is ranked #10 because of how many people have bought the album on Pre-Order. They are ranked above bands that have been on here for a while and are considered "more notable" just because this band is newer and you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't notable. The band is nominated for this year's Taste Of Chaos Tour, the band's manager and label are working out details for that right now, because Alesana who are Ghost Of A Fallen Age's label mates have just signed with Fearless Records and the owner of that label runs Warped Tour & Taste Of Chaos. Once again the album will be sold in Bestbuy, Target, Virgin Records, Tower Records, Hot Topic, Amazon, Etc... On Feb 6th when the album is released. Again, some of the bands already on here aren't even sold in a market that large. I think you should do a little more research on a band before you go off and assume they aren't notable.

-Noregret1 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Norgret1 has said, I think this band has just as much information as any other band on WIkipedia. Also I checked out the smartpunk page and Ghost Of A Fallen Age is on the front page of that site also; featured with notable bands such as: Anberlin, classic case Also, Ghost Of A Fallen Age is ranked #10 out of all signed artists. They are right behind Fall Out Boy which I'm sure you've heard of.

-Jonnyrebel 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band was followed on tour by The Lynchburg News & Advance and had a front page article written about it. Their new album was also mentioned in Alternative Press Magazine.

-JoshuaJay 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrials: A Field Guide for Earthlings[edit]

I wrote this when I was a newbie, only concerned with generating articles. Looking at it now, its notability is questionable. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what is wrong with this book, its got an ISBN and could be expanded. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good A7 candidate. I've added it to Terence Dickinson's publication list, since the book isn't notable even though its author is. Flakeloaf 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many non-notable books have ISBN numbers. The book does not require an article of its own. Also per Flakeloaf. Mkdw ^talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ISBN thing is not an issue as many, many books have them,. But there is definatly a concern for notability. Arjun 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notibility. It needs to have links to media reviews/awards or something to determine that it is noteable. EVERY book has a ISBN number, an article for every book would probably be a couple billion extra pages over night.--155.144.251.120 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. | Noticket 15:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terence Dickinson. Redirects are cheap, it may be searched for, and internal links exist that ought to point somewhere. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete If someone wants to write an article about this, they need to start from scratch anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smith and Kernke Funeral Directors[edit]

Listed for PROD and I executed the sentence, but then I noticed this is on the National Register of Historic Places. That being the case, I didn't feel an outright PROD was warrented here. I'm opening this up to an AfD.--Isotope23 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is listed as an Historic site, its not a notable one. Google returns only 11 search results for the title "Smith and Kernke Funeral Directors" (Wikipedia mirrors were eliminated). Most of the 11 search results were only phone and address listings with no information about the historical site. Mkdw ^talk 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Ignoring the fact that this article is cut-and-pasted from here (click on "Facilities"), even if this page were not a copyright violation I'd still lean delete, unless it were re-written to be about the building and not the non-notable business. Agent 86 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as this article now has a copyvio flag plastered on it, further input is not possible as the text is no longer available.--Anthony.bradbury 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly still is, just click the "history" tab. Agent 86 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are more results when you search for "smith.and.kernke" by itself as well as "smith.&.kernke". Most of them are obituaries, of course. Personally, I think the National Register listing is sufficient, as this is not just an honorary designation but a lengthy peer-reviewed process vetted by professionals at the state and national level. But obviously we need a real article, not a cut-and-paste. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G1)+(A7).--Hús ö nd 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven chan[edit]

Non-notable, offensive article. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per C1, C10, A7. Flakeloaf 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. So tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. This AfD is a mess, only one person objects to deleting the articles, and he seems to be more interested in shouting admin abuse than sensibly arguing to keep. -- Steel 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebAPP[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested speedy (after, I believe, three previous speedies) and guaranteed to be a contested PROD, so direct to AfD. Apparently non-notable freeware. Commonness of name makes it difficult to Google, but the related official site garners 111 Ghits, none immediately apparently from reliable sources. Appears to be strong content pushing from those associated with the product. I'm far from expert in the field, and so leave it to fellow editors to determine the product's notability or lack thereof. Robertissimo 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments have been moved from the top of this page and back again there; please note the common sense that when submitting an issue for discussion one needs to provide complete references to the issue before the discussion start. I am afraid that by insisting on hiding the true facts you show that you are not interested in having an unbiased discussion in an issue in which you admitted self not to know much about, you will not win this consensus you are after by playing techniqual edit/delete games (you= the sysop who started this process here). Monty53 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the logs and links under refers to the last delete made on an article that was made fast and not to the original article that was there before (for two months) and approved by sysops. Monty53 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is updated, kindly visit and advise on other required changes. Thank you Monty53 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Kindly read responses from contributors to the article also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WebAPP this is because they are not aware of the discussion here. Monty53 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, WP:N. Flakeloaf 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are hereby challenged to show us how it fails according to these two guiding rules. Monty53 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be rewritten and its notability verifiably demonstrated.--Guinnog 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be improved, and you all know that. Isn't this why one has editable Wikipedia for? But how will one be able to improve the content if it is being deleted is an enigma to me. Have you read the Wikpedia guidance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion it states clearly there that one should consider editing articles BEFORE and NOT after NOR while articles are suggested to be deleted or being deleted. Its says clearly: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate " Monty53 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've added related article Web-APP, created by the same editor as the original article, possibly to circumvent this AfD. Robertissimo 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why all these speculations? Web-APP was redirected to WebAPP before the article was deleted. It only shows that you guys did not do your homework, you have not read the discussion og logs of the deleted articles. I demand that all these speculations and personal attacks will removed from the discussion here. Kindly read the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_application where it was stated that BOTH there is a need for an artilce about WebAPP and that a redirect link should be made, to your knowledge this redirect link was added originly by a sysop and NOT by me nor by anyone from WebAPP project. Your appology would be appreciated. Monty53 11:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monty53 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nominator. On a side note, I note with interest that the ~~author blanked my userpage in apparent retaliation, and then accused me of being in some sort of anti-open-source conspiracy, so caution to anyone who disagrees with him, he may respond poorly. -~~ (striked out this severe groundless personal attack, because non of the sysops bothers doing it- Monty)CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your apology would be appreciated, I have never blanked your userpage, your personal attack on me should be deleted from this discussion. If you can not even read your own log in your own personal site before coming with false accusations maybe its you that "respond poorly". Monty53 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I very nearly speedied this when I saw it on CSD earlier, and then again when I saw the tag added. Do we really need to go through this AfD? One of the previous deletion comments mentioned copyvio; if that is the case it should be blanked and sent there. The only thing stopping me doing these things myself is a lingering worry that in spite of its dreadful state at present the article's subject may well be notable; as Robertissimo says it is difficult to Google for. Any other opinions? --Guinnog 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator mentioned, any means short of an AfD will be contested by the author until the alpacas come home. Copyvio's a tight fit; it looks to be written by the team responsible for creating the program in question. At best it's a prod candidate for WP:N, at worst it's WP:SPAM. Flakeloaf 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are hereby challenged to provide information of where copvio "right fit", it does not, you are confussing this article with something else someone else wrote 2 months ago which also was not copyvio as he used his own text. What do you mean "it looks like" please come with facts and not feelings, thank you. Monty53 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You are hereby requested to check the difference between the letters R and T. The facts are I said the article is not copyvio, my feelings are that you need to calm down and listen to what we're saying. Flakeloaf 11:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to, but there is so much information written here that is not true, but sysops have allready decided on the basis of this information to delete the article. It feels like unfair trial. I wanted to add "history", "references" and "security" as well as edit the article, but from what I see around here it would be a waste of time as the decision was allready taken place without even giving a chance to edit the article. So this is quite frustrationg, anyway thanks for noticing this frustration! Monty53 12:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While noting the arguments detailed below, this article still appears to fail WP:WEB. And if this statement is correct, which I am happy to say is a decision for a more senior member of the community, argument is pointless.--Anthony.bradbury 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, why all these speculations? The suggestion to write an article about WebAPP was made by several sysops and article contributors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_application Again, I do not see one good argument for deleting the article except speculations and now hanging on a "bigger fish" eg. "a more senior member..", lets admit it, non of the sysops here whom decided to delete the article has a clue what open source scripts are, because if they did, they would just learn that hundreds if not thousands of such articles are placed everywhere in Wikipedia, that those articles are notable and are in the true spirit of Wikipedia for telling about free, open source popular scripts. Monty53 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answers (if I may?) Firstly concerning "spam" and "non notable": The US gov. has just published an article concerning a security patch released by the WebAPP project in www.web-app.net. Why would they do so if it was "non notable"? ( http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2006-6688 ) I mean no harm and no personal attack, but I do have a doubt that the person/s who deleted this article at the first place knew what they were saying when defining this free open source script as "spam" or "non notable". Both well notable Roger Moore and Tony Curtis are using this script for free in their work for unicef (for free too). Are they also spammers? The article was there for 2 months nearly and actually got positive responses from several sysops!
Secondly concerning copyvio.: one of the developer of the WebAPP site tried publishing an article where he used some of the text in the "about ino" in http://www.web-app.net it was his own text, so he did not violate any copyrights issue. I am no developer in that site, you can check it your self with a search on my nick "monty53", I started using the script few months ago.

Thirdly concerning personal attacks: I do not buy this "heart breaking" story. To have a personal attack, a name of a person should be subitted on some framing information to who it may be, I never did so, but this person did it himself (above) he also suggested that he was attacked for being belonged to some sort of "anti-open-source conspiracy", very interesting too, I never wrote that either. All I did was quoting few words from his personal page, the explanation for these words was given by him above and NOT me.
Next, I never blanked anyones userpage, this is complete nonesense!
Monty53 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The userpage-blanking appears to be a case of mistaken identity. Chairboy's page was blanked by Webapp, who was apparently the author of a previous version of the article. The fact remains, however, that Monty 53 did in fact repeatedly remove the speedy tag from this iteration, despite the template's clear instruction for the primary author not to do so. Robertissimo 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. How many of you read the original article by user webapp? This article was added redirect link by a sysop from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-APP and was given positive feedback by several sysops, the article was untouched by sysops for several months until suddenly one sysop arrived today and decided to delete it without any warning whatever! Isnt that vandalism or power abuse by a sysop? (or am I personaly offending someone again?). How many of you read the discussion in redirected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webapp DEMANDING an article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP ? The controbutors in that place asked to create this article.. and now someone "just felt like" deleting it and someone else "just got insulted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty53 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-18 23:20:59
- The deleted article was a copyright violation, a straight copy and paste of a copyrighted web page. Please see the warning in boldface that has appeared below the edit screen every single time that you have edited here. Uncle G 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why telling lies? user by the name webapp copied some of his VERY own text and added it in some place in the article. And what has webapp actions got to do with this new article we are discussing? I see that ego is a very important for some of you as resoning for voting. This is my point of view you can take it or you can ignore it. Monty53 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My last word. And after that I will keep my mouth shut. google on a bad day produces 15,000 hits for the WebAPP project: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-50,GGLD:en&q=%22web+automated+perl+portal%22
Please read the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_application where it was originaly suggested by sysop to submit an article about WebAPP. After this article was submitted (by webapp?) it was given a redirect by a sysop and stayed untouched for two months (?). To say that me or webapp or anyone else made this redirect link is simply not true. The original article was given several positive feedbacks and users contributed with more content, this article was deleted today instantly without any warning. The new article placed by me is different, and was also deleted instantly, again for peculiar reasons, if one is unhappy with the content of the article he/she could have demanded to edit it, but the trigger was pulled too fast and another article (complete different one!) was deleted again. I am asking you to read carefully the discussions and articles that were deleted and see it with your own eyes before deleting it again, this aticle is not perfect and certainly needs editing, but deleting it will not serve anything or anyone except some ego or revenge for some unjustified offense who took place against one of the sysops here. Monty53 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs citations of sources that demonstrate that our WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. Wasting time making accusations against your fellow editors contrary to our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive, instead of spending your time citing sources, will not save the article. Please contribute productively to the discussion by citing sources. Uncle G 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notibility. Does not have any reviews or indepedant notable sources that mention it. No references apart from linking to itself. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software).--155.144.251.120 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are suggesting that all articles that are missing some information should be deleted? Is that the new Wikipedia policy? I guess one has plenty of work to get done with... deleting 99.999999999% (if not all) Wikipedia articles for the crime of being incomplete. Again I have not seen one good argument above for deleting the article execpt for some hurt feelings by one or another sysop. Has Wikipedia turned into egopedia? Monty53 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ego has nothing to do with this. Anything anyone says about this being personal is bollocks. This AfD and the PRODs that preceded it were intended to remove an article that appears to describe an otherwise non-notable website. If the article's content and external links assert its notability (which is defined as several non-trivial, reliable published works sourced independently of the subject of the article) then it meets WP:N, and by extension, WP:WEB and may stay. As Anthony.bradbury pointed out, time spent arguing the point here is time not spent improving the article so it appears to meet these criteria. Flakeloaf 11:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not sure how to use a Wiki and never have before but this has not only inspired me but the article in question will in fact inspire many, who have never "wikied" before to do so. After reading the comments here, it seems that it's a matter of politics. You either keep the article showing good faith and the acceptance of free will or remove it to clearly display a type of bias dictatorship. Are we saying that all articles start off complying with all guidelines? Are all current articles in compliance? I don't think so. That's what makes this look like a bias and deliberate attack. Shame on you all. I hope Wikipedia does not continue practicing singling out certain articles before they have a chance to grow and prosper as this one seem to have. WebAPP has a history of growth and prosperity and that can only be proven with time. Look at the responce it's causing now. I say keep an open mind and let's not make a stand on the importance of Give this article time! Tedcambron 12:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC) — Tedcambron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Comment Now would be a good time to consult ~~WP:SOCK~~ WP:SPA as well. Flakeloaf 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:WEB, and lacks sources. --Core desat 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Both has to do with editing articles NOT deleting them, aren't you a bit fast in pulling the trigger, have you seen the original article that was there for 2 months? I dont think so. To delete an article because it needs some editing? This is NOT Wikipedia policy and it makes no sense whatever. Monty53 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of events so far:

1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application contributors meant that since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/webapp is redirected to the article about Web_application there was a need to start a new article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP with a redirect link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP (please check discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application for more information.
2.) An article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP was added as requested and a sysop made a redirect link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-APP too.
3.) Some sysop added a request for instant delete which was changed by another sysop for a request for more contribution as well as editing. After a long discussion and editing the article was accepted and one removed the tags asking for those.
4.) The original article was surviving without any troubles whatever for over a month and was further edited and added text. Presumingly a user by the name "webapp" added some text he copied from the development site at www.web-app.net a text written by him which consisted on one sentence.
5.) A sysop suspected a copyright violation and deleted the entire article (!).
6.) I came into the picture and since I had no backup whatever of the original article, I decided to submit my own (new) article instead and remove these irrelevant tags about spam and requests for delete, since "we have allready been there and allready did that".
7.) One has decided to restart the discussion of having/deleting/editing the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP
8.) One has decided to add a vote for deleting of this article without even considering to edit out the original article or teh new article, an action that goes in contradiction to the original guidance of how and when one should add "delete vote".

My question: what is the point to have a new discussion and vote if we have allready been through this! If you guys decide yes/no and tomorrow one sysop will have a bad day (as it happened in this case) and will decide to delete the entire article because some small editable issue what does this discussion above worth? Can any sysop overrule earlier discussion and turn up side down the entire democratic process in Wikipedia? How many more times will we need to go through this deleting discussions? This makes no sense at all.Monty53 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the articles' nominator for deletion (and as one not involved in the subject at all until I added a speedy tag to one version earlier this week), all I can say is that, despite the lengthy defense of the subject, no one has done the simple thing, if it is possible, and added references from reliable sources that help establish its notability, which would in turn help one of the two meet WP:WEB (with the other, presumably, then being turned into a redirect). In other AfDs in which I have been involved, this is often a sign that such sources are not available. Robertissimo 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the strategy, since no one here realy has a clue what open source scripts/projects are, "lets make them sceptic by minor techniqual issues and they will agree to delete". I have a surprise for you: sources references, history and more will be added and that should not be diffcult, I got approx. 15,000 hits in google when searching for the term "Web Automated Perl Portal". But why couldn't you ask for this BEFORE you started the deletion process, do you expect me to produce all this with a knife over my head? Is that a new Wikipedia policy? Monty53 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also see a strategy. If one decides to take an openly objective view, then the comment is quickly nullified by defamation of the poster by labeling them as some kind of "single purpose user". Treating people in this fasion makes an intellegent person reach a conclusion that there's been a "click" formed in wikipedia and outsiders aren't welcome. I am a human being not a sysop here. Is this what it's all about? Is someone on a self centered mission of sorts? I do have experience with this type of behaviour and can help out but the first step is to own up to the real issue. This is not an uncommon practice but will impede the prosperity of any function and everything conected with it. I hope this helps. If anybody needs help understanding what I've mentioned, please ask. I have a tendancy to believe that most people can see things from a hightened level. Tedcambron (UTC)
Ego Challenge I hereby challenge the sysops above whom voted and excuted "delete" to delete these two similliar articles at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phpbb and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaBB reason: lack of resources, copyrightsvio (they also copied pasted text from their original sites), and nonnotability. Needless to mention that WebAPP is not less popular open source and free cms portal script. After doing so, come here and tell us that you have no plans of converting Wikipedia into Egopedia. Before I forget, YaBB and WebAPP are sister scripts they departed from each other 5 years ago. phpBB has by the way implemented doorman security idea (which they got by inspiration from WebAPP). Ok no time for talks, sysops show us that you have guts! Monty53 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monty53 is correct about YaBB: the whole Features section is copyvio from [50]. I'm not seeing any of the mentioned problems with Phpbb. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Powerful My goodness! By the reasons mentioned, the two articles mentioned,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phpbb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaBB

meet the criteria for deletion. I don't think they should be candidate for this either. Are there more? Probably, but let's look at this with an open mind and understanding that people are a complicated creature and we must control our inherent emotions for the good of mankind. I'm sure that once a decision is made we can move forward and that's really what everyone wants to do. Now the question is, will the WedAPP article be given the same amount of leaniency as other articles or will the article be deleted which, in itself, make for an interesting article.Tedcambron(UTC)

I stand corrected. Neither article establishes notability. Neither has reliable third-party references. But back on-topic: I am withholding my keep vote pending reliable secondary sources that establish notability. The Kentucky Lake Times article sounds interesting, but the original apparently has gone missing and it is impossible to know what it may have said. The alert of a security problem doesn't do it for me either; Symantec doesn't rate the risk at a particularly high threat level. Has anyone else written about this software? I find the behavior of the defenders of this article, including the recent delete of the AfD notice, disappointing. If more energy continues to be put into contesting and disrupting the process, I will conclude no sources are forthcoming and add my support for deleting the article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is no reason for a party, this guy means business, he will delete YaBB!. Gentlmen I withdraw back my challenge, please do not delete them. YaBB can be improved so can WebAPP, phpBB is so bugged (the code) so it is a service to the public if you delete it, phpBB websites is defaced by dozens everyday. But again this is about the article content, and not the source code. But seriously if we are to discuss notability, please check the forumboards on WebAPP forum support there are over 10,000 well noted posts there by several thousands webmasters from several thousands websites who happened to use the WebAPP free, open source script, its still not the hundreds of thousands, who happen to use Wikipedia, but soon.. Monty53 03:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for guidance It appears that one or two sysops here provided false information while deleting important information. It looks like one is trying to create a case for reasons that do not follow Wikipedia policy and guidance, and use these actsin support of representing the case. I am considering to complaint against this unacceptable actions and ask for help in forwarding a complain. Monty53 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It has been cited a little or non interest whatever by the sysops to discuss the suggested proposal for delete. It was also cited non or very little interest of the sysops to check the logs, original article and updated versions. The only sysop that keeps posting on the case has at start mentioned that he lacks knowledge in the field and asked for help, this help was not provided to him by anyone yet except the article contributors. I therefor ask you (the sysop whom started this discussion) to kindly dismiss the case. Thank you Monty53 13:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's really going on here? It seems that once again I find a serious decision not based on the dynamics of real life, but on "kaotic control". I've studied kaotic science and can explain that more if need be. We have an example of all defenders being categoried as one group and that goup gets labeled in an udesireable fasion. This is not acceptable in the real world as people are individuals and everyone deserves a human right to be unique in thoughts and opinions. I also take exception to the following statement:

"If more energy continues to be put into contesting and disrupting the process, I will conclude no sources are forthcoming and add my support for deleting the article" If I read this at face value it states that a decison will be based on a condition that has little to nothing to do with the subject. I don't know how wikipedia works but for a decision to not be contested would be indigent of a dictatorship. Not that there's anything wrong with that type of political system. It's just not widely accepted. To state that anything I may have said as disruptive is debateable. I've only tried to help out a worthy cause. If helping the decision making out by contesting a decision is not acceptable here, then I stand corrected and I appologize for any inconvinience but too conclude "no sources are forthcomming" because of it, is deplorable. It's a completely different subject and should not be deluted to make a point. Let's also take a look at how the article has continued to grow not knowing if it will ever be accepted. That should speak volumes. Most people would have given up. Living in uncertainty is not anything I wish on anybody. Gentlemen, please do unto other as you would have done unto you.Tedcambron

To JonHarder You are the first sysop to delete the article because you assumed that it was copied from the about section in www.web-app.net (information I got from user webapp), you meant that it was a copivio issue, but it was made clear to you that the poster "webapp" has written the original article and he can not violate copyrights by copying from himself. Why do you allow another sysop complicating the issue even more? According to webapp you asked him to simply edit the original article not to start the 3rd ww. I think that you ought to stop this discussion because it has started by a misunderstanding. And could have been avoided if one would think (ask for editing) before acting (deleting) which is infact the recommended policy from Wikipedia in such issues as you must know. Monty53 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at the links provided in the article, and see only one that is a media article (announcing the release of WebAPP) ... the others seem to be download sites and similar. Of course, if I'm wrong and better references are added that do show notability more conclusively, then it shouldn't be deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Have you looked at forums at http://www.web-app.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum there are over 10,000 posts by several thousands websites owners, many of them quoted their personal point of view of webapp, yes as bloggs. But again this is not the issue! There was an article there from before that was approved by several sysops. The discussion here started because of a misunderstanding concerning copyvio and not notability. webapp copied one sentence from his own article on another site, and a sysop that cited that thought that the article was a copyvio, but one can not have a copyvio when copying from oneself! Are the people that vote here really check all the details when they vote? If not, please do. Thank you Monty53 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the delete nominator You were saying that "ballot tags" is a usuall thing to have in such discussions, this is not correct. There are hardly two articles suggested for delete with this tag (out of hundreds!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18 Thus, it is not a common thing to have. I know you were unhappy about this discussion here at the first place and tried several times deleting the article without a prior discussion or giving a chance for editing. I see this act of insisting on having a non relevant tag here as another attempt of yours to create dramas for no reason whatever. Monty53 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well documented vandalism Please check and compare the last changed versions on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WebAPP&action=history one sysop and two "new" users (probably the very same sysop) are insisting on deleting an entire links section (for no explanation/reason) whatever and a message calling for an admin to stop this vanadalism. What has happened to Wikipedia? I use Wikipedia alot in school (yes I am a teacher!), I think that I will keep my class away from this "thing" atleast for a while, Wikipedia needs to expell such admins not reward them! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monty53 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have a (very slight) point there; I was removing the message from the article (we do not post messages in this way, but use the discussion pages and project pages like this one instead) without realising I was also taking out a couple of external links. THere are really too many external links already but I've put them back anyway. Best wishes --Guinnog 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have "point", is this why you blocked my ip there now? This is a clear vandalism, you removed the link to Wikipedia article where it was suggested at the first place to make this article. It is a very important link. And you removed it without even discussing it with the article editors, shame on you. You are abusing your power as a sysop. You also removed an important message at the top of the article with important information. This are very cheap tricks to win arguments in. Monty53 22:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ip is blocked for no justified reason by a sysop How sweet, I am being asked to edit the article so it will comply with some (new) ideas a sysop discovered after the article was mistakenly deleted for alleged copyvio. And while doing so, I found out that another sysop deleted an entire links section on the article (clear vandalism) and also ban my ip so I can not do any editing at all. Is this the way Wikipedia is working in? I doubt it. I think that I am being tortured by few kids on the block, I just don not understand how they ended up with sysop pistols in their hands, who gave then this power. FOR THE LAST TIME I AM ASKING, HOW CAN I GET A SYS ADMIN TO COME HERE AND SEE THIS POWER ABUSE BY ONE TWO SYSOPS HERE. Kind regards Monty53 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. The creator seems to have a severe attitude problem, viewing this nomination as a personal injustice. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some sysiops here have the need to scratch each other backs, may I suggest that they do this in close rooms and try harder to keep the discussions and actions as relevant as possible? Monty53 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete copyvio. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the GNU General Public License[edit]

I now know that the text of the GPL is copyrighted and should not be included on Wikipedia. See the article's discussion page for more information. —Remember the dot (t) 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The associated redirect page, Text of the GPL, should also be deleted. I'm sorry to have put these articles on Wikipedia in the first place. —Remember the dot (t) 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for being very G12 Flakeloaf 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Plagiarism. [51] Metrackle 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Warrior[edit]

Non-notable Flash game. This is not an actual arcade game despite what the article says and is not to be confused with Galactic Warriors. Metrackle 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. One flash game among thousands. Flakeloaf 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly tens of thousands. And the article is so short as almost to qualify for {{db-empty}}--Anthony.bradbury 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ShivaDaDestroyer 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Flakeloaf and Metrackle. I wouldn't speedy it as it qualifies as a stub. And the vote above mine should be discounted since it comes from an indefblocked troll. JuJube 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alt.romath[edit]

Created by me in the long long ago. Basically unverifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) PS: No thumb images for me.[reply]

Delete I've been involved in the article, but have always been concerned about the verifiability of it. If Hipocrite wishes it deleted I can't see a reason to disagree. -Will Beback · † · 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of Hipocrite's own request. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator requestsdeletion, WP:V, WP:RS... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deletion log states Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington deleted "Concierge medicine" (G11). Navou ^banter 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could possibly be a valid subject but has been written as advertising for one business and would require considerable clean up to meet Wikipedia standards Random Passer-by 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concierge medicine[edit]

Delete This is an essay, designed as a promotional exercise for a specific service, which makes it WP:SPAM as well.--Anthony.bradbury 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a valid topic. Yes it needs some extensive clean-up, but that's not a reason to delete. --John24601 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It may indeed be a valid topic. If so, it can be re-created when someone puts in the necessary time to create an acceptable article on the topic. It should not be preserved in its current form in the hopes that someone might stumble across it and do so. Soltak | Talk 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and so tagged. This article written by single purpose account ConciergeDoc, is an advertorial, which necessitates cleanup effort disproportionate to rebuild from scratch. Delete without prejudice for re-creation as encyclopaedic article. Ohconfucius 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad fiancé[edit]

Is tis actually different from any of the other variations on the theme of a trusted partner who turns out to be bad? The references do not support this. Oh, wait, there are none. So: probable OR as well. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far worse than some of the hero and villan categories that I have seen deleted. (I know this is an article). TonyTheTiger 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic list. Agent 86 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Renaming the article can be discussed on the talk page and not here—the deletion question is settled. Philwelch 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western U.S. Freeze of 2007[edit]

This is not notable. KazakhPol 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate page on larger ice storm. – Ch acor 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a Rename of this article, as it only focuses on California - and California wasn't the only state hit by a nasty cold snap. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I learned a lot reading this article, and how can you consider it not notable? Tyronen 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 billion dollars of citrus damage is pretty significant. Snow in So Cal is pretty significant. It needs a bit of expansion, but the event is still occuring, so it will evolve. 69.236.24.132 02:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thusly my suggestion for a rename. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - ...hooboy, that bot wasted NO time! --Dennisthe2 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was specifically searching for a page on this subject and was impressed to find it - then amazed to see it was up for deletion! KazakhPol in West of US and A, not living, obviouslyness... --Oscar Bravo 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I did not understand that at all... KazakhPol 18:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - KazakhPol is not living in the western U.S., obviously, is what he said. As far as I know, it's a Borat reference, so to speak. bob rulz
Keep and Rename - One of the biggest cold snaps in many years. It could use a rename, however; Western U.S. cold wave of January 2007? Or January 2007 western U.S. cold wave? bob rulz 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is irritating that it would even be considered for deletion. We have an article on every single tropical system that ever existed, even ones that never affected lands, and were extremely minor, but we cannot have an article on a cold snap that caused snow in LA, and $1 billion dollars in crop damage. Give me a break!69.232.32.81 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow in Southern California is very rare and therefore noticable. Plus, the fact that a state of emergency had been declared due to crop failure also is notable. guitarhero777777 05:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Somebody help me. When was the last time snow fell on 30th parallel on sea level since the ice age ( in recorded history)??! Mbralchenko 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many keeps and renames that I see a clear consensus. Weather1019 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost. Clearly it's a keep, but now we need to decide - keep as is, or rename to something else? WP:SNOW doesn't yet apply, as far as I can tell. --Dennisthe2 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, current title is not the best title where the article belongs. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The impact of this weather event was far-reaching. --Czj 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tove Jensen[edit]

I'm nominating this under the same reasons a similar porn actress's article (Anna Marek) was deleted last month, i.e. no reliable source of information exists, except an "official page" which points users to where they can buy her movies.. Static Universe 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suggest you find a better reason to nominate this article for deletion; official websites for actors and actresses of any variety are some of the most reliable sources for verfiable information. Currently the article passes both WP:RS and WP:V with flying colors. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The official sites are the least reliable sources for this variety of actress. The biographies that pornographers publish are almost always complete fiction, made up by the people who sell the magazines, videos, DVDs, and so forth, to accompany the pictures/films. For example: The same simple set of pictures of the same person could be "Erica, a 19-year-old co-ed from Ohio" and "Ustenia, 18, Czech Republic" in two different publications, according to the target market. This is because the people photographed usually do not want their true biographical information published, because of the nature of the industry that they are in. They are, by deliberate choice, unverifiable. The only source of biographical information that this article cites is from a web site that is advertising DVDs. We have no way of knowing that this web site is not doing just the same as what other such pornographers do: making up biographies from whole cloth.
  For a particularly amusing example of how unreliable the purported biographies in these advertisements are, consider this advertisement, equally as (un)reliable as the web site that the article cites (since it is simply yet another "official" advertisement), where the subject of this article is stated to be male. There is no fact checking going on here, and this example alone should convince you that truth and accuracy is not the intent of these web pages. The pornography industry not only has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, it has entirely the opposite reputation for making false biographies up. These are not reliable sources. They are advertisements and most likely complete fiction. Uncle G 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She fails WP:PORN and WP:BIO. As mentioned in the Anna Marek AfD, the problem with adult actors and actresses for whom no major media coverage has been generated is that it is impossible to find neutral, reliable sources of information. This article is destined to remain an unsourced stub. Also, the "official website" that is linked from the article is NOT official; it appears to be a fan site. - Jhinman 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having 'official website' or not it fails WP:BIO] in that there is no indepedant media coverage etc. that can assert notibility.--155.144.251.120 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that is a good reason for deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Uncle G noted, WP:LIVING is quite strict about the need for reliable and independent sources when the subject is presumed alive. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable. Over 550 google hits for "tiny tove" indicate that she is somewhat popular, at least. This nickname is also used in some circles as a generic description for pornography featuring a woman who looks a lot younger than she is. She's Climax Magazines' best-selling model, according to the claim on their home page. JulesH 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which addresses the charge that there are no reliable sources of biographical information for this person, or indeed supports the assertion that this person is notable. Whether she is popular or not is irrelevant. Notability is not fame nor importance. Supporting the assertion that this person is notable requires demonstrating, by citing sources, that she satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. You've cited no sources whatsoever. And counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the pages that the search turns up, looking for sources. You won't find anything other than advertisments (indeed mostly the same advertisment, submitted to reams of self-submission web sites and discussion fora) when you do. Uncle G 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Climax Magazines looks more like a reseller than directly related to Color Climax, who originally produced the Tove Jensen films. Color Climax is based in Denmark and the magazine site is in Germany. Static Universe 07:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Uncle G's point about biographical notability criteria. The relevant one is this:

Notable actors [...] who have appeared in well-known films [...]. Notability can be determined by:

[...]

A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

[...]

Name recognition

I would argue that the films listed are well-known, at least within their genre (in fact, I understand they are considered by some to be genre-defining). There does appear to be an active fan base, and Jensen is described in numerous sites as a cult figure (although none, unfortunately, are reliable sources). Name recognition is the argument I was building upon with the large number of hits mentioned above. A significant proportion of those hits are not advertising. Unfortunately, none of the non-advertising sources appear to be reliable, so this may be destined to failure anyway, but I am sure that *somewhere* sources exist. Where did the information we have here come from anyway? JulesH 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known within her genre, one of the most notable of teen pornstars, meets WP:PORN BIO as described above. RFerreira 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known in the "teen porn" genre, according to the FBI a large portion of those arrested for child pornography have images of Tove Jensen in their collections due to her pre-pubescent appearance. Was huge in the 1970s and her magazines and movies are still sold today. Color Climax Corporation claims her to be their #1 selling female actress. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known, atleast here in Northern Europe. I think the sources are okay, but if needed it can't be too hard to find something better. bbx 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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