Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 8 August 10 >

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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pindown[edit]

Fails google test; dunno how far it can get without any google hits. Besides, not very notable topic. --How dare you? 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Major news story at the time, and Levy's report had a significant impact on child care practices. This doesn't fail the google test, you just have to filter out other uses of the term - try googling "pindown staffordshire". Also, as it was significant enough to warrant a public inquiry, what do mean when you say its "not very notable"? SP-KP 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I judged it based on the content of this article and what I found for it on google. Didn't seem to appeal to me. Note that an AfD says in the tag that the article is being CONSIDERED for deletion, and in no way is it guaranteed that a deletion may occur for it. --How dare you? 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well, this search seems to give quite a few hits, some of them scholarly, so it seems ok to me. The article does lack sources, however, and I'll tag it as such. -- Deville (Talk) 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add sources. --Wafulz 00:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable and verifiable in its current condition. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article needs improvement, but documents a significant event regarding the institutional treatment of children in care in the UK. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic men/women fetish[edit]

No reliable sources on this, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified eaolson 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Until such time as WP:V is met I would assume this is a hoax - Glen 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gomu gomu no delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:V per nom and above. 5 ghits. alphaChimp laudare 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and unverified fetish - Bootstoots 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. Michael 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although unfortunately I fear this is not a hoax, but either way no WP:V -- Deville (Talk) 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. it is a true fetish, but not topical/informative User:CollegeExpress
  • Delete like most of these extremely-minor fetish articles, it's "real" but not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless verifiable sources can be cited. I don't think this is a hoax. With sources, this could be encyclopedic. But the burden to provide sources lies with the author(s). Scorpiondollprincess 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless substantially improved. These labels for sex fantasies are fairly self-explanatory, and only a very few of them have enough cultural reach to be worthy subjects for encyclopedia articles. Not convinced of this one's merit. Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. rootology (T) 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I think this exists, but if we had an article on every existing fetish, we'd have to double the number of current articles. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, no reliable sources can be found at the moment. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NN and WP:V *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, fails WP:V, per nom. I've got a fetish for Mister Fantastic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer WP:V BookLover 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn, Keep. Teke 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue D (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, a party act. Sales figures are impossible to verify (50,000 burned cds sold worldwide?), and the trivia section does nothing to enhance notability. Teke 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I withdraw the nomination by overwhelming concesus. I cannot dispute the Billboard charting, which falls under the music guidelines; I commend the other editors for their commitment. Teke 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the article had not received the AfD template. This has now been added. BigHaz 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, it seemed my template got lost in a session data error (I use a script for nomination). Thanks for the fix. Teke 00:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC per nom - Glen 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They seem to meet WP:MUSIC's sections on CDs and touring, according to the discography on their website and the press section. The press section in and of itself (with clippings from the Village Voice to the Glasgow Herald, etc.) should do it to keep this article.--Kchase T 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC per nom KnightLago 02:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting group, but is it verifiable? Keep if references added before end of AfD.(done as of 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)) JYolkowski // talk 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They've got a (fairly minimal) Allmusic page, and according to the "Charts & Awards" section thereof, their song Do I Look Like a Slut? reached #8 on Billboard's Hot Dance Singles chart.[1]. As such, they satisfy WP:MUSIC. Without looking too hard, I also found two of the media mentions from their "Press" page: one each in the New York Times[2] and the Village Voice[3]], both of which are brief-but-very-positive discussions of the group's live performances (two different shows). I also spotted a single-track review for one of their collaborative projects in Pitchfork[4]. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more before I go to bed: Here's their feature in the Pittsburgh City Paper. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete per nom. The article shows no notability per WWP:MUSIC. I note the claims for notability, again in the afd discussion rather than the article. Nor am I am impressed by the keep noms that the article "looks roughly accurate". Tychocat 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You realize, of course, that the time you took to write "Delete" here could've also been used to add some of that info to the article? I'll never understand some people's views on deletion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, you are correct. As I am, in presuming you have not added the information either, as of this writing? I realize I am speaking for myself when I say irony does not travel well. Tychocat 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a bit on touring (with refs!). AfD regulars might be amused to hear their song on donkey punching.--Kchase T 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't update it last night because (as I noted at the time) I was about 30 seconds from falling asleep at my computer, and I figured that I could get it after work later today if nobody else did it first. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They charted, so they're encyclopaedic content. I can't believe I'm saying keep on a MySpace band. WilyD 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're notable. rootology (T) 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please it passes wp:music with touring and releases and billboard hit single too Yuckfoo 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per charted hit. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - revised article meets WP:MUSIC for showing charted hits, and national tours. It's a pity the afd process must be used to get articles to meet WP policies and guidelines. Tychocat 23:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Hecht[edit]

State legislature nominee, not notable unless he wins, no other notability asserted. NawlinWiki 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, delete. Ned Wilbury 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for failing WP:V.--Kchase T 01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:BIO which says Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (emphasis mine) - further Wikipedia:Candidates and elections states (not policy) that articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written. - Finally google test brings 11 pages - Glen 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — When and if he gets elected he'll merit an article. Until then, however, he fails WP:BIO per Glen. alphaChimp laudare 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as he won primary!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijemi (talk • contribs) Note: Author of the article, no other edits
  • Delete. Candidate does not mean notable. Wikipedia is not a voter's guide. It is definitely not free adspace for campaigns. Fan-1967 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per alphaChimp, bring him back if/when he wins -- Deville (Talk) 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weasely politician spam --Xrblsnggt 06:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 07:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable political candidate . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO as suggested above. Also, WP:C&E suggests an article on the election itself (rather than the candidates) should be created first. If a candidate is truly notable, he/she can have an entry. But first, this info must be merged into a page on a notable election. Then we can discuss if individual candidates are sufficiently notable for their own pages. Scorpiondollprincess 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until he wins. Don't salt. rootology (T) 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator until notability can be asserted. RFerreira 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernail fetish[edit]

There are a few google hits on this from message boards or porn sites, but no reliable sources on this, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shevanel[edit]

Vanity, band has never released an album -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Spa 2[edit]

This is apparently a non-notable pornographic film. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — It's not even trying to claim notability. I wish there was a CSD criteria for this type of thing. alphaChimp laudare 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp. - Bootstoots 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not even close to be notiable. --Edgelord 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per alpha -- Deville (Talk) 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp. -- Gogo Dodo 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable porn film, a lot of porn stuff are coming up on Wikipedia and a lot of them are nonsnese, per Alphachimp. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Sex Spa as a sequel. Powers 12:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that we should even have an article on the first one. That having been said, if this somehow survives AfD, it should probaly be moved to The Sex Spa 2, if that's the actual title. Also, are you sure this is the sequel, and not just some other random pornographic film? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a sequel, given the title. And the article does say it's "A 2005 sequel to The Sex Spa". Powers 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to see this, but I was afraid I wouldn't be able to follow the plot because I hadn't seen "Sex Spa 1". Ok, seriously... IMDB has an entry about the first one, but no mention of a sequel. I'm not necessarily saying this is a hoax, but a movie not on IMDB is below my minimum inclusion criteria for films. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rootology (T) 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the original prod tag I placed on this article when it was created (which was subsequently removed by the article author). --CPAScott 13:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was swift deletion as the articles about a group of people with no claims of notability and could very well be called an attack article in some places. There's really no reason for this to carry on for five days. Wickethewok 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Smackdown! Board (IGN)[edit]

Article about a somewhat non-notable bulletin board that contains primarily information about individual users, and seems to be attacking some of them. Is being edited at an alarming rate. - Bootstoots 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isnooker: The worlds most accurate online snooker game[edit]

Massive WP:NPOV violation in the article title. This is a minor online game, probably popular among its users, but no evidence of meeting WP:WEB is presented. Contested prod. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 01:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not spam, not intended as an advert. I have no vested interest in the game. It is a description of something that exists. Fair enough about the title being misleading as an advert, which i would be happy to change it.

(The previous comment by Westredd (talk · contribs), whose only contributions are to the Isnooker article and this AfD discussion.)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE (take your pick, since it's an online game)... only 2000 players? Even includes the obligatory awesome players list. --Kinu t/c 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tosser hey kinu, your opinion conforms to what comes out of my arse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westredd (talk • contribs)

Insulting other users in an AfD discussion will generally not help you get your article kept. JIP | Talk 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but neither should it harm the article's chances; the article should be judged on its merits, not on its author's conduct and/or compliance with WP:NPA. And this article, judged on the merits, is a clear Delete with extreme prejudice. VoiceOfReason 06:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, bodering on keep. Discussion should occur on the talk in regards to inclusion. Yanksox 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable NIT alumni[edit]

Recreated after being deleted through prod. Link spam and a quite indiscriminate collection of information. -- Koffieyahoo 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as alumni lists are established article types for WP, although needs cleanup, ie, names listed must meet WP:BIO and all external links need to be removed that aren't useful for sourcing.. hateless 02:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it really true that all of these people are alumni of the National Invitation Tournament? Or are they from the Northern Institute of Technology in Hamburg? No way to tell. Fan-1967 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment these are alumni of all National Institutes of Technology in India, which is exactly what makes it pretty indiscriminate as it is not about a single institution. -- Koffieyahoo 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This was created only three days ago, yet three of the first five name/weblinks are to nonexistent pages. Fan-1967 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment it's an exact copy of the content that was deleted through the prod. -- Koffieyahoo 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above. CPAScott 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but seriously clean up. After reviewing similar articles for other institutions, I find them mainly lists of people who actually have Wikilinks, not weblinks. "Notable" in Wikipedia means people who have (or at least qualify for) Wikipedia articles. Most on this list clearly do not. Fan-1967 02:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into National Institutes of Technology article. --Cassavau
  • Delete, this has category written all over it -- Deville (Talk) 04:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to National Institutes of Technology and categorize. -- Gogo Dodo 04:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into List of National Institutes of Technology alumni. It is not category, this is a very good, commented list. It cannot be merged into an already large article. `'mikka (t) 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not one of the people listed is linked to a Wikipedia entry. If they actually have Wikipedia entries, they should be linked to those pages instead. --Metropolitan90 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep - This list is quite informative. I have wikilinked two people to their respective bios. There are many more people on the list who are quite notable (eg. K V Kamath of the ICICI Bank - he is as notable as Ben Bernanke in India), but who don't have an article on wikipedia. I am sure that most redlinks will be converted to blue as wikipedia gets more popular in India. The list needs to be moved to List of National Institutes of Technology alumni per mikka. There is some sense in having a list of alumni of all NITs at one place instead of spreading them to around 20 NITs in India. I would call this list to be an equivalent of List of notable Indian Institutes of Technology alumni which seems to be the inspiration here. The names of some professors could be removed as being a professor at some prestigious institute is not notable per se.- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful list; Wikipedia is not paper. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to National Institues of Technology. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's pretty reasonable, encyclopaedic, whatever floats your boat. WilyD 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comments about lack of individual pages aside, this is a good list. It could and should be reformatted, and pages should be created for the individuals if they qualify, but the list itself is well-structured and informative. Badbilltucker 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unverified original research; this is yet another list based on vague and undefined criteria. What exactly denotes a "notable alumni"? What criteria does someone have to meet to be considered notable in this context? Who is deciding these people are notable? where is the external sources that verify that these people have been referred to as "notable" by a reliable source? This is original research, pure and simple and should be deleted as such. Creating a List of National Institutes of Technology alumni would denote we should be listing everyone who has graduated from any List of National Institute of Technology and I think such a list would violate WP:NOT as indiscriminate. --Isotope23 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is decided with references all the time here in AfD, there's no reason it can't be done in articles as well. The idea that wikipedia can never have some listing of alumni of a particular institution is ludicrious WilyD 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK, but where is this criteria in respect to this list? Who or What is determining this vague idea of "notable"? I'm not opposed to a list, based on quantifiable criteria (of which the included people in the list are shown to meet with external citations), of some subset of alumni of an institution... but this list does not meet that definition. This is a vague, arbitrary piece of original research.--Isotope23 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't worked on the article, so I don't know, but I'd guess you could easily include a note like The criteria for inclusion used here are those at WP:BIO or such. WilyD 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to "list of NIT alumni who have a wikipedia article, or who would qualify for one" if "notable" is too vague and undefined. Kappa 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - if 1) citations are included and 2) non-notable persons are deleted. Leuko 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - isn't this like saying "List of graduates of a technical university" or "List of graduates of a university in the United States"? Seems too broad. --Awiseman 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not a list of all alumni. It is a list meant to be only for notable alumni. Look at List of Indiana University alumni, List of University of California, Berkeley alumni, List of Miami University alumni, List of Indiana University alumni for example. This list is just the same. But instead of redlinks for people where there is no wiki article, the list contains links to external sources (which verify that they are notable up to some extent). - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided that the term "notable" is defined appropriately in the article based on WP:BIO, and that the list is checked and anyone who does not meet those criteria is removed. In form and design, this appears to be an excellent list, and one of the rare kind that it's hard to imagine replacing with a category. — Haeleth Talk 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in wikipedia, the word "notable" is not used in names of articles, like, List of Lithuanians, since notability is a default criterion for inclusion in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with National Institutes of Technology article. -- stubblyhead | T/c 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is way too big for a merge, eh? WilyD 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a Smerge with National Institutes of Technology would be OK, as long as we only merge the people who are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia bio and abridge the descriptions. If you think the NIT article is already too long, it's time to start spinning out sub-articles on a few of its sections as standalones. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to remove the word "notable" from the title to better conform to other alumni list. I think notability in this one will be a buger to tie down since they maybe extremely notable over in India but not to a majority of yanks here.205.157.110.11 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — into National Institutes of Technology American Patriot 1776 05:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. utcursch | talk 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is too big to merge. If they criteria for inclusion is that they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own, it is fine. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too hard to verify. At least, delete all entries without articles. Preferably make into a category as it is easier to verify each person in their own article than in a generic list which could have random names added without anyone being authoritative to remove names - who knows who shouldn't be on the list? Stephen B Streater 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Yanksox 00:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution Smile[edit]

Self promotion by User:Summerever, seems to be a liittle known band, Speedy deletion tags on subpage Summer Ever has been removed without comment, POV-cleanup tag on this page has also been removed without comment -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Chris 73 | Talk 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • not a little known band, but it has been fixed for a more neutral pov. thanks. --Summerever 20:38, 9 August 2006
    • It's great that the band has been covered in those publications you listed, but you need actual links to the article, or at the very least, bibliographical citations of the articles in print. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there may be some notability, but the article(s) need a rewrite at the least. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom KnightLago 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There may be some notability here. However, the article needs major revision to come up to standards. --Cassavau
    • Question/Comment - When things like this come up, I usually can see why. But I'm having some trouble figuring out what my fellow editors find "wrong" about this article. I did some spacing changes, but I find no issue with the content. Any suggestions? PT (s-s-s-s) 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SPAM WilyD 13:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets touring requirement of WP:MUSIC as a Warped Tour band. PT (s-s-s-s) 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure spam, and does not pass Notability --16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)
    • Keep with the information now provided on the page, I am changing my mind on the article. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain how this article is "spam." And it clearly passes notability just on the touring requirement alone, so why are you saying it's not notable? PT (s-s-s-s) 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete this band is not very notable, unless someone can post with support of notablity I move for delete. Æon Insane Ward 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already did, they meet the touring criteria of the notability requirement. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC, now contains links to some press coverage. the wub "?!" 08:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC through touring. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: external press and enough to say about them. Stephen B Streater 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shorkey[edit]

Does not stress notability of player, seems to be about a new minor league hockey player with no noteable accomplishments yet. Knowing Is Half The Battle 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator Knowing Is Half The Battle 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Minor leaguer = not notable. (Is that date of birth correct? Did he actually start playing, even at this level, at 16 1/2?). Fan-1967 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan, and the DOB is possible, I think Gretzky played in the OHL when he was 15 or so -- Deville (Talk) 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been an Owen Sound fan my whole life... and at this point, all I can say is: WHO? Let's at least wait until he's considered notable on the NHL's Central Scouting radar eh? DMighton 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the creator had been trying to make an Owen Sound player database I might have a little more sway one way or another but bring out the delete stick. SportingFlyer 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some OHL players are notable but a 16-year-old who hasn't accomplished anything yet is not. BoojiBoy 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable Masterhatch 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgings[edit]

About a drinking game that appears to only be popular at one university. Only gets 250 hits on google, most are reposts of this article. NN. Renosecond 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Stormie under CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 03:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha goldthwait[edit]

Bobcat is notable; his daughter is not. CPAScott 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not even worth a redirect. Fan-1967 02:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to Read Book Club[edit]

Non-notable local kids reading club. The club gets 13 Google results (something is really odd with the Google results...it's showing 55,000 results, but only 13 when all are displayed) and Yahoo gives 26. Was deprodded but it doesn't seem to have any notability outside of Spartanburg. Metros232 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may one day become Prime Minister, discover the nature of Dark Energy or be the world's richest person. Until that day comes, I don't deserve an article. And neither does this group WilyD 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — Delete until it gets somewhat bigger. K-UNIT 07:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local group whose charity functions earn about $2500. Great idea and I wish them well, but too minor for an encyclopedia entry at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She be spam, I see with my eye WilyD 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP.My daughter had me submit this to Wikipedia to help her gain some momemtum with her club. I know nothing about this Encyclopedia, but she uses it a lot. I quess we were wrong to try to list it with you. People can find us on the web, so it might not be needed. However I am not real pleased with the delete reponses. They seem kind of petty and judgemental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.184.190 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Well that's not a good reason to have an article on something. To help "gaim some momemtum" translates to "to advertise" which isn't what an encyclopedia is for. Metros232 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Advertise a reading club that contributes books to underprivledge Kids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.184.190 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Good luck with the club though. -- stubblyhead | T/c 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AnnH ♫ 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many chapters of this club need to be active for it to be considered 'big enough for Wikipedia?' The Need to Read Book Club has partnered with Barnes and Noble Booksellers and also the Boys and Girls Club, both reputable and national organizations. This fall, clubs will be started in Boys and Girls Clubs in South Carolina as well as more school clubs. Also, the Need to Read Book Club is a project of the National Heritage Foundation that has a four-star charitable rating according to Charitable Navigator - the best rating that can be given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeedtoReadBookClub (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as the article does not assert notability as of now. Provide citations for coverage in multiple non-trivial publications, and you might have an article.--Aguerriero (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: could not find articles quoted in external links. If anyone can provide links to the articles in the external links section, I'll change to Keep, as it shows outsiders thought club was notable. Stephen B Streater 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Truthbringer Toronto (Neostinker 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lajioum Organization[edit]

Prod removed, non-notable, zero google hits Naconkantari 02:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nearly nonsense, nearly lack-of-context. --Allen 03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable organization, unverified. Almost unintelligible. eaolson 03:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, revoluvanispamcruft, any article which starts with "We are" and some crazy picture has got to go -- Deville (Talk) 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article for a cheesy non-notable club (probably less than three members) --Xrblsnggt 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply nonsense --Giourkas 12:08, 9 August 2006 (ETC)
  • Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a poor attempt at self-promotion. Mixel 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nonsense. --Bigtop 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CSD G4, redirect to husband, fullprotect - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Khan[edit]

Deleted for being non-notable on previous AfD; has not become any more notable - IMDB still shows nothing, etc. Crystallina 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fein[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Given the current content of the page, I propose that it be deleted as a non-notable biography that fails WP:BIO. It is about an aspiring comic who is a college student with a blog (not linked) and a Facebook profile (not unlike millions of college and high school students). There are no sources backing up the claims in the article that the subject is "a potential comedic-genius" by Dead Frog, and "vulgar, disgusting, and unequivacally repulsive" by Red America,a conservative internet blogsite and forum." - the links only go to each site's respective homepage. And as for his other claims to fame, "Winning the Nickelodeon Super Toy Run in 1993" isn't related to the career of an aspiring humorist, and "Being verbally threatened by MLB All-Star Pitcher Scott Kazmir in 2004" is amusing but not notable unless it was the subject of a major news controversy (again, no sources). The other content of the page ranges from trivial to non-NPOV. Fabricationary 03:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it. There are thousands on University of Texas students who are aware of his work and facebook page. I've seen alot of his blogs too. QWE123
    • Note: Only edits have to do with this article. Morgan Wick 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. I am the author of this, and after talking to Admin Mariori, he and I discussed what needed to be changed. I will look for the exact sites from Dead Frog and Red America. If I cannot find them, then I will erase that in the next few hours/day. As for the Scott Kamir/Nickelodeon comments, I am wanting to give instances in which his alleged book will include. How should I change this so that it will fit wikipedia standards? CollegeExpress 22:35, 8 Aug 2005 (CCT)
  • Comment Everything in the article must be verifiable from Reliable Sources. From there, editors can judge if there's enough to consider him notable. I can tell you that a blog and a facebook or myspace page have pretty much no value, as millions of people have them. After ignoring those elements, and the unverified/unverifable anecdotes, doesn't currently look like there's anything left. Fan-1967 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Only edits have to do with this article. Morgan Wick 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I have yet to hear of Fein, considering that I know Scott Kazmir attended Cypress Falls High School in NW Houston, and this guy is from Langham Creek High School in NW Houston, I'd say this page just needs some facts or sites that can back it up. Everything else, besides the Dead-Frog (never heard of it) and Red America portion, that should simply be deleted until there are some direct links that can support the claim.

To be honest, the members of Last Comic Standing are "up and coming" comics, and we seem to not be able to get enough. More than contributions to comedy, we get their entire life story. I consider this not-half bad, although there do need to be some changes made. - Bacardi6868 3:59, 9 Aug 2006

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

The result was delete. I tried to find a way to save this, I really did, but the notability is not there, even after the cleanup. The references are weak, and nothing in the text of the article in any way asserts its notability. The closest I could find was "In 1990 the Christ Church congregation was the third largest in Sydney". Not only is this not notable, but the stat is unreferenced and 16 years old. Turnstep 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church St Ives[edit]

non-notable CPAScott 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that this church is any different from any other. WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. --Kinu t/c 05:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you evidently don't know the Sydney Anglican scene. Christ Church St Ives is very notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't know the Sydney Anglican scene. Quite frankly, it's not my problem. I go by what's in the article and what I can find from other reliable sources. Instead of insinuating that I am incapable of voicing my own opinion about this subject based on what I do know, try to improve the article instead. --Kinu t/c 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 05:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one is notable. If you added an article about, say, Berowra Anglican church, then I'd vote to delete. However, Christ Church St. Ives is in fact extremely well known. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - Christ Church St Ives is one of the most well-known Anglican Churches in Sydney. There are some other Anglican Churches in Sydney that have articles and yet are less notable than this one. The article needs a cleanup but it should stay. (JROBBO 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Jesus spam --Xrblsnggt 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete. Please stop being discriminatory. (JROBBO 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I have to say that this is the first time I've heard this reason used. Personally I find it inflammatory and unnecessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now adequately referenced. -- Mako 08:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, possible merger with its location article. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable spam. Leuko 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just as notable as the thousands of utterly ordinary American high schools that we can't seem to get rid of, but I guess it's a good thing that at least some of this site still resembles an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, are you from Australia? Secondly, are you an Anglican in Sydney? If not, then how do you know whether it is notable or not? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into St Ives, New South Wales. JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mention at St Ives, New South Wales. I think JROBBO's comment is probably true, but this article does not show it. JPD (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Christ Church St Ives is an extremely notable church in Sydney. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is extremely notable, then its importance should be evident within the article. All the article claims is that is is a "large" church. --Mako 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I totally understand why you think it isn't notable. However, the fact that the article is written poorly is totally seperate to the fact that the church is notable. Just because we have a bad article on Wikipedia does not make the church any more or less notable. Personally, I'm working on Patriot Act articles, which are even more notable, otherwise I'd do something about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we are not allowed any time to fix it up? Surely more than a couple of days should be allowed... (JROBBO 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Presumably 5 days was deemed significant time to improve any article, or at least put it on the road to improvement, if you think it's too short then maybe suggest so over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Mako 00:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had something in the article as it was originally written given evidence to its notability, it would have been tagged with one of the cleanup tags rather than afd. As there was no assertion of notability originally, it was flagged as non-notable and tagged for deletion. This ensuing debate is a process by which such issues are worked out -- and final determination is made by an admin after sufficient debate has passed. There is an improvement tag that can be used to tag an article as "under improvement", (I forget the tag), but I'd assert that articles should either first be developed as a User Subpage until they are adequate enough to enter the article section, or are tagged by the author as needing expansion. My very humble opinion anyway. --CPAScott 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're from California. What do you know about this church? (JROBBO 08:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - this article has now been fixed up. The things that make it look like an advertisement have been removed, and some notable history has been included in the article. The church is still one of the largest Anglican churches in Sydney. I think that makes it notable. (JROBBO 08:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • On notability: it gets mentioned (>15 times over the last 20 years, I can only go back to 1987) in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) a bit (usually as "Rev Dr John Woodhouse, Rector of Christ Church, St Ives, who will..." etc), but it also has had a couple of articles discussing the history and congregation figures in the SMH (they are now references in the article). There isn't much, if anything, in other big newspapers. In 1990 it was the third largest congregation in Sydney. There was a book published in 1990 (~126 pages, see the Further reading section in the aritcle), I think the church itself published it, but it is available at some academic libraries. Seems like a keep to me.--Commander Keane 10:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: external press and published book show notability. Stephen B Streater 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeg[edit]

Neologism and dict def. Unverified. eaolson 03:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep LactoseTI 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwak Jae-u[edit]

Not notable - there is very little available on this person; I think it should just be merged into the main articles. LactoseTI 03:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Speedy keep, the fact that for now there is little information which was translated to English wikipedia for this person in particular, doesn't meant that the article has to be deleted. In the Korean version of Wikipedia ko:곽재우 there is plenty information about him. And there are many writtings and even a picture of a statue of him available at http://www.koreandb.net/General/person/p161_00587.htm , articles start with little information-this is true and it doesn't mean because they have only few lines, they had to be "speedied". It is likely that it will be expanded sometime in future by a skilled korean translator. --HappyApple 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, what makes you believe this article is likely to be expanded? It has been there a year and is a one-sentence stub. Fan-1967 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does a unlikelihood of expansion have any bearing after notability and a source of reliable information has been established? Afterall, the length of an article has never been established as a reason for deletion, even if it has been used to cite the unlikelihood of finding reliable sources. If we need a catalyst, then a translation can be requested. As is, even as a sentence, it's a useful link to the Korean article. hateless 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikipedia is not a crystall ball policy mainly relates to future events and extrapolations, and current or future people/things/groups for which only speculation about their futures exists. It doesn't really apply to famous Korean military leaders of the 16th century. ☺ Uncle G 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even on the Korean wikipedia article, there is very little more than what is on this one (in terms of content)--I sincerely doubt this article is ever going to be much more than a (short) stub. Perhaps he could get his own section on the Hideyoshi's Invasions page. If there really is such a plethora of information, it would be broken out later. Incidently, no one is "speedying" anything... LactoseTI 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. it is not "very little" in korean wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 05:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Happy Apple. hateless 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as expandable, and affected by systemic bias vs. non-english topics. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after expansion from sub-stub to decent stub. Fan-1967 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, suggest speedy keep. Generals who participate in important campaigns are notable per se, and even if that's the only thing they are remembered for. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" it is; removing the notice now. I still think it'd be better served inside the main campaign itself, but HappyApple at least expanded it a bit. LactoseTI 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Phaedriel ♥ tell me ]- 10:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Savage Village Mime Troupe[edit]

This page is simply vanity. This alleged mime troupe does not perform publicly, and are not an official club of Whitworth College (or of any kind, for that matter). A Google search returns five results, all of which are Wikipedia or its mirrors. This 'troupe' is not notable at Whitworth College, let alone in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. The article even states that it was 'founded' by three students, and only two still 'perform'. I feel as if this issue is fairly cut-and-dry. See Wikipedia:Vanity for Vanity guidelines. rockingharder 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Naconkantari 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Technologies[edit]

Tagged for importance, and author not able to come up with much, except that they work in international trade and have international clients. IT consulting company with 26 employees, 134 unique GHits, and reads like an ad. Doesn't look to me like remotely meeting WP:CORP. Thousands of IT consulting companies this size or larger. Fan-1967 03:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Cassavau 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 04:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, spam, spam, spam, spammity spam, spammity spam --Xrblsnggt 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "unique" Google hits are a fallacy, and have no bearing on the importance of a given topic. Under no circumstances will any imaginable topic, no matter how notable, return in excess of 1000 "unique" hits. The article topic is still a non-notable corporation though. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response My understanding is that "unique hits" are filtered from the first 1000. In a case like this, where the total is 793, the unique hits are accurate. When the total goes over 1000, the unique hits are no longer reliable. Fan-1967 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because it's obvious that too few Delete-advocates even read WP:CORP when they cite it as a reason for deletion. So, let me copy it here, so you don't have to click the link and read it:

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: o Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

Now, with that being said, if you look at the article Norman Technologies, you will see that the Charlotte Business Journal has written about Norman Technologies on two different occasions. You will also see that the company is unique in two different ways -- it's the ONLY American I.T. consultancy engaged solely in international financial transaction initiatives; and it is the ONLY non-bank representative on an important committee of the International Chamber of Commerce, which is an organization that has been around since 1919. If you intend to delete perfectly acceptable articles such as this, then where is the action on articles such as: Intrada, Coney I-Lander, Force Fed Records, and Kiessling, to cite just a few? Remember, the "Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone". So, ask yourself, Delete-advocates, why are you going after this particular article with such vigor? Is it because you know more about restaurants and record labels than you know about international transaction software (which is responsible for processing billions of dollars of trade every day)? I guess it's not notable if you don't understand it. -- MyWikiBiz 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments (1) Many companies are featured in a local business section or paper. Articles from non-local sources would have more weight. (2) Unique is not the same thing as notable. Is a company your size that works in international trade somehow more notable than one of the same size that works domestically? Sorry, don't see it. (3) There are a lot of articles here that don't belong. Doesn't justify keeping others. Fan-1967 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I don't see that WP:CORP says that newspaper articles must be "non-local". Maybe you should propose a re-write of WP:CORP, rather than invent new criteria of your own design on an AfD page. -- MyWikiBiz 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response There's also the question of "multiple" and "non-trivial". You have two references, and one is a six-paragraph article of "news and notes", with one paragraph (the last one) that says Norman rented new office space. I'll let others be the judge on their value. Fan-1967 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm not yet prepared to weigh in on the discussion, but it should be observed that WP:CORP is only a guideline, such that it doesn't necessarily command the consensus of the community and in any event is not dispositive relative to any AfD and should not be adduced as categorically controlling. Whilst essays, guidelines, and policies that represent the deliberative consensus of the community writ large exist, every editor uses, of course, his/her own judgment—at least to some extent—in interpreting WP:5P, especially WP:NOT, and pronouncing as to the encyclopedic nature of a given subject, in order, inter al., that such pronouncements might be synthesized toward a propitious encyclopedic outcome. Joe 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "only a guideline" argument doesn't hold water. Several of our notability "guidelines" have seen steady and almost universal use for years, now. They all, in one form or another, embody the primary notability criterion. A few years ago, this discussion would have had editors giving their personal opinions of how "famous" or "well-known" or "important" the company is, or centring the discussion around the author of the article. Now, as a direct consequence of WP:CORP, you'll notice that editors have gone looking for books, news articles, and the like (i.e. sources), and are basing their rationales upon the extent and nature of those sources. Uncle G 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I employ WP:CORP in evaluating AfDs, but many do not, and there is surely no compulsion that they do so. Remember, there are some who think notability ought not to be a consideration in any AfD discussion (with which propisition I disagree quite strongly), and we do not summarily discount their participation here. The role of AfD is to synthesize the views of many editors apropos of the encyclopedic nature of a given subject, such that the criteria used by editors might be conflated toward the production of a consensus, irrespective of guidelines that reflect the views of most editors. I find WP:NN and its progeny to follow directly from WP:NOT, such that the former ought, IMHO, to be tagged as policy, in order that some frequently-repeated AfD discussions should be avoided, but in the absence of such tagging, it's not reasonable to dismiss cursorily any argument that relies on an uncommon interpretation of WP:CORP or on criteria wholly different from those of WP:CORP. Joe 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable. Notability, by the way, is not even a guideline, much less official policy. I prefer to based my decisions on WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. They do the job quite nicely with no need to refer to nebulous concepts like notability. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the claims of notability are verified. The footnotes verify that the company has a board of directors with external members, and moved its headquarters, but "Norman Technologies is the only U.S.-based private-sector I.T. consultancy focused solely on global trade initiatives. The company is also unique in that it provides the only non-bank representative to the International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique & Practice", have no verification. But verification for claims of importance is far more important than verification for what is basically trivia. Having a couple of references is not the same as being verified. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Clearly fails any sensible reading of WP:CORP. Small; privately held; non-disclosure of financial information. Logo displayed with "permission". How do you spell advertisement? Unverifiable claims to uniqueness of its market and role. It's not even possible to verify a claim that they are the ONLY American I.T. consultancy engaged solely in international financial transaction initiatives (as if that's something that even matters outside the company) unless a really reputable source makes the claim (and not a press release reprint-mill like so many small publications). -- Slowmover 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Another non-read of WP:CORP. Nothing in criterion #1 says anything about the company's size, nor whether it is privately-held. Cargill is privately held. Should we delete that article? Cerritos Auto Square claims it is "the largest and most financially successful auto mall in the world", but offers no financial proof. Should we delete that article? TQ Digital Entertainment is really nothing but a POV advertisement. Should we delete that article? I think many of you are confusing criteria for IMPROVEMENT NEEDED with criteria for DELETION. We all know why this article is being singled out for such rabid scrutiny, and it has nothing to do with WP:CORP. -- MyWikiBiz 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, and why is that? First, the company is not notable (that they paid money to someone to write an article for them to improve their exposure simply means that they paid money to someone to write an article for them), it certainly does not reflect on their notability. Also, as noted in the nom, the article reads like an advert. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - One reason the article reads like an advert is that its "importance" was questioned. In order to communicate the importance of a company, one often looks to superlatives such as "the biggest", or "the only". Personally, I thought that the fact the company lists among its clients such notable institutions as Barclays, BB&T, PNC Bank, SunTrust, and Wachovia, would serve as enough indication that the company is important. Would each of these gigantic banks be comfortable working with an unimportant, non-notable vendor? Seems coincidental or lucky for Norman Technologies, if that were the case. Either that, or they lied on their website about their client roster. Take a look at the first few paragraphs of Sun Microsystems. Doesn't read like an advertisement, because you "assume" that you know Sun to be notable and not needing to defend its importance. On the other hand, read the first six sentences of Coca-Cola. It very much reads like an advertisement. Just so we understand, is it okay for an article to read like an advertisement only if it is a delicious drink that many Wikipedians enjoy, but that articles about drab businesses in the information and financial transaction software implementation category may not read as an advert? -- MyWikiBiz 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying is that if I knock on the doors of a few large companies, and some employee there hires me for a day for my expertise in whatever, that I can become as important as Norman Technologies. Sounds great. I'll be back here with a self-aggrandizing article next week. -- Slowmover 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the fact that the company is small, privately held, and doesn't disclose financial data, is the reason that it does fail all three of the WP:CORP criteria. Nobody is paying attention to it, because it doesn't rate any attention, and Wikipedia should ignore it. Finally, I reiterate the comments by Fan-1967. -- Slowmover 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - The first criterion of WP:CORP has been satisfied by the article. A company only need meet ANY ONE of the three criteria to qualify. Using WP:CORP as a reason for deletion is only hurting your case, unless you feel that the Charlotte Business Journal is "trivial". -- MyWikiBiz 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not trivial. But hardly important, and not where people go for encyclopedic information. And no corroborating sources. Pretty lame stuff. -- Slowmover 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone explain to me clearly how deleting this article is a net benefit to humanity. It's a good little synopsis of an IT firm, and it explains two interesting things about them, particularly their representation to the international chamber of commerce. I honestly don't care if it *is* advertising in some vague twisted sense. It's extremely likely that some day someone will want to know more something about this company before they do business with them, and they're going to look for that information on the web. And guess what, if this article survives, Wikipedia will actually be able to inform them! Fancy that, Wikipedia informing someone who needs factual, unbiased information! If there are "thousands of IT consulting companies this size or bigger", please write articles about them - "thousands" out of 1.3 million articles is hardly excessive. Have we lost sight of our mission somewhere? Stevage 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is a strange interpretation of the WP mission. By definition, advertising and self-promotion (eg, autobiography, and this is essentially corporate autobiography) fails WP:NPOV. Articles which are sponsored by self-interested parties do positive harm to the mission of an encyclopedia. That's why it should go. If it was possible to objectively write the thousands of articles you mention in an objective and unbiased manner, I could agree. But it's not possible. If articles like this aren't deleted, WP will become a big yellow pages saturated with disinformation, lies and distortions, and will only serve the over-inflated egos of the authors. It will not be providing anything close to information (q.v.) -- Slowmover 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Check out the first one-and-a-half paragraphs of the article Coca-Cola. Put some musical accompaniment behind it, and you'd have yourself a great 60-second advertisement. Delete Coca-Cola? -- MyWikiBiz 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting problems with other articles doesn't really fix this one. You're an editor: please improve the Coca-Cola article as you see fit. You don't really think Norman Technologies is up there with Coca-Cola or Cargill, do you? -- Slowmover 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this business making it a encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a business directory. We need to aggressively monitor this user's other contributions for more of the same. FloNight talk 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - While well-written and informative, it does not yet meet WP:CORP criteria. What exactly has this company done that is notable? Offering unique services does not in itself make a company notable. How have those services been used to do notable things? Any innovative work that was mentioned in major trade magazines/journals? Has there been *any* notable news to come from this company that was reported by major trade/national/international publications? --mav 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Leuko 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of what we think of MyWikiBiz, this clearly falls under our guidelines: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" - local pulications are not excluded by this policy. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; seems to meet WP:CORP (mention is non-trivial in a newspaper). Could be improved to address minor POV, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 26 employees and the only sources are a local business journal. This doesn't add up to encyclopedic to me. Gamaliel 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the claims of notability are verified. WAS 4.250 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo just made a deal with the author who was paid to write this article. Jimbo says:"He agreed not to edit Wikipedia articles when he is being paid to write by the subject of the article, and to help the companies he works with understand that it is probably not a great idea for them to edit their own articles as well. He will write articles and post them on his own site, under the GNU FDL, and to ask trusted prominent and independent Wikipedians to add the articles, on their own independent judgments of the merits of the articles." [5] because "Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues." [6] WAS 4.250 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for that. Fascinating reading. Fan-1967 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CORP explicitly says that "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." The newspaper coverage does not fall into the prohibited category, so policy says to keep this. It's a pretty well done article, verified, not a copyvio, and almost NPOV - so there is no reason to delete. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 00:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criterion also says multiple, non-trivial. There's one actual article and a note about them renting an office. Fan-1967 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article does not meet notability requirements, and this is a bad precedent to allow people to be paid to write articles, meaning they have a vested interest in creating the article and making sure it's kept. If a writer is being paid, what's to keep the writer or his employers from paying for "keep" votes? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If a writer is being paid for it, what's to keep his opposition or his employer's opposition from paying for "delete" votes? What if there is a magical teapot in Mercury orbit mind-controlling every editor who votes "keep"? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is an issue of credibility for any reason then the solution is to insist on trustable sources (ie the verifyability POLICY) which this article lacks for its elements of noteability. WAS 4.250 03:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The newspaper coverage is from a local-business paper, which as far as I'm concerned puts it on a par with college papers and only a step above press releases as far as its ranking on the reliability scale. In other words, it fails the "not non-trivial press coverage" -- and since both articles are in the same paper, arguably the "multiple" threshold. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Stevage. And I see nothing wrong in someone being payed to write articles. As long as the content is factual and NPOV I don't care who, or how someone, payed for it. Shanes 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CORP and I don't care if people get paid to write stuff as long as it is verifiable & neutral --Trödel 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble with this argument (and the one immediately above) is that the important parts of the article are not verifiable (and may therefore not be factual). --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then remove that material as not being verifiable - that is not a reason to delete the article - that is a reason to edit the article --Trödel 09:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it appears to meet WP:CORP and is verifiable. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CORP. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two unimpressive sources don't meet CORP's requirement of "multiple..." and the claims to uniqueness have more modifiers than I care to count.--Kchase T 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep After bouncing around my head a few days, MyWikiBiz's arguments about uniqueness have stuck. Some of the material is still unverified, but not unverifiable.--Kchase T 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP and yes, I was involved in that discussion so I have read it. Vegaswikian 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not? Its not nn. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains no citations or references for most claims (all except two fairly minor facts). Therefore it fails the WP:OR and WP:V policies. —xyzzyn 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : not notable. Poppypetty 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't appear to be an ad, the company is a leader in financial IT technologies, and is well-known throughout the finance/IT world. Mugaliens 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Facinating. Remarkable, even. Fan-1967 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: appears to meet press notability guidelines. Advert-ness can be tidied up as necessary. Stephen B Streater 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Calton. Plus the uniqueness claims seem rather artificial and undisclosed revenue makes it always hard for outsiders to assess the company's position in the marketplace, especially with smaller companies like this. regards, High on a tree 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any company can make a claim to uniqueness if it's phrased carefully enough.--MichaelMaggs 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments above. While the article could probably do with a cleanup, it doesn't violate any policy that I can determine. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. —Kjetil_r 09:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - private not notable company--A Y Arktos\talk 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Lincher 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamish, nn company. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, xyzzy_n. --Craig Stuntz 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Ginkgo100. The article does not appear to fail deletion policy. The violations of editorial policy (verifiability, et al) need to be corrected. --Dystopos 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would reduce the article to one paragraph, which would at best barely fail to meet CSD A7. —xyzzyn 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability is the first and foremost criterion of deletion policy. Fan-1967 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would depend on how the editorial problem is addressed. Things that cannot be verified must be deleted. Things that could be, but lack proper citation, need not be. --Dystopos 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Gingo100 and the five pillars. I wonder when I see someone arguing against any well written article whether the person(s) have some pov agenda of their own outside the main mission of this project being a repository for knowledge and quick reference.
       At the least an article like this gives wikipedia visibility due to web searching —a good thing for the other million plus articles—believe it or not there are still a great majority of people out there who have never heard of any wiki including wikipedia.
       As to notablility, any concern that as in the relatively brief history of this company that can grow a new enterprise to 26 employees in such a short time is undergoing explosive growth. By rough rule of thumb assuming unskilled labor that indicates annual sales of well over three million and since they're IT and professionals (taking into account benefits, retirement, medical and such derivative overhead costs needed to maintain a company) we can safely posit well over five million per annum, even in the cheaper labor market of the south US. That they are privately held and capitalized (!) vice being a public corporation is far more to their credit and notability by some significant exponential factor than some market funded enterprise. Try your business plan on the local bank and see how easy it is to get loans and lines of credit to spread out operations costs. Not!!!
       Ask your local mayor if he'd like a company like that on his tax base. Huh! We're not discusing your local retailer with three-quarters of it's employees in a part-time/non-benefits hiring category.
       Not every product can be easily described or packaged, especially when corportate confidentiality and overall security become major peices—ask your local Law firm or CPA for a list of services for examples—but don't doubt that such intangibles are important or necessary to many if not all service businesses. That would be extremely niave. // FrankB 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also have wondered about agendas. I see an advertisement (not an article) for a tiny company, created by a paid agent of that company. Vanity/advertising articles on companies of this size are routinely deleted all the time, yet I see a sudden onrush of defenders. I am, frankly, mystified. Fan-1967 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am curious, Fan-67, whether you have checked out the articles about Intrada, Coney I-Lander, and Force Fed Records? What were your thoughts on them? Do you feel they have more merit than Norman Technologies to be included in Wikipedia, the same merit, or less? If the same or less, why haven't you AFD'd them? While you're looking, check out Force Fed Records' own website for news on why the latest release from the Dead Sea Fuckin' Scrolls is taking more time than thought: "Still further delays with this record, the pressing plant have somehow lost the master...looks like another couple of weeks." Is that verifiable, or not? Maybe we could ask User:Afxp, who wrote the Force Fed Records article. He has a ton of contributions to Wikipedia -- one -- Force Fed Records. (And, yes, I know that this doesn't have any bearing on the acceptance of Norman Technologies or not. I just think it's equally mystifying to me.) -- MyWikiBiz 21:45-50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, it's not relevant to your company. My general impression would be that the record store and hot dog stand do not deserve articles. When it comes to indy record labels, I have no idea, as I've never heard of most bands formed this century. Fan-1967 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, as I know you know, Norman Technologies is not "my" company. Plus, I added more hilarious commentary above, re Force Fed. -- MyWikiBiz 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am interested in this article because of its relationship to Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest. I spent about 15 min researching on the internet and found support for some of the statements, and reworded a statement regarding being "the only US..." to being "a US..." - since the reference I found didn't support for "only." I request those discussing the deletion of this article soley because it isn't totally referenced yet - reconsider since eventually it will be, or the unsourced material will be deleted. --Trödel 17:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom.--Zxcvbnm 04:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Arguably meets [{WP:CORP]]. JoshuaZ 14:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I have speedily deleted this article as an advertisement for a personal website. --Stormie 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wordz (literature)[edit]

Contested prod. Not notable, not even an assertion of notability, links to freeweb and myspace pages, ghits for wordz have nothing to do with the subject VoiceOfReason 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletez per nom. --Cassavau 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Note that the prod-contestor has made four edits, all to remove prods. Or should that be prodz? eaolson 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 04:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. `'mikka (t) 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MySpace = nn once again...z0rs. Danny Lilithborne 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 10:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One For All[edit]

I am nominating the following articles for deletion, all of which are single episodes of a short-lived children's television series that is itself of mediocre importance.

These episodes by themselves are not notable enough to keep separately, and would contribute little to the main article. NatusRoma | Talk 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all individual episodes of a little-known TV show don't merit their own articles. Merge anything relevant (doubtful) and get rid of these. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL requirements forbid merging and then deleting, because doing so would destroy the history of the deleted article's contributors. Could you please clarify your vote? NatusRoma | Talk 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closing admin: not exactly true, many many precedents of the same on AfD -- Samir धर्म 10:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Artw 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for reasons above, plus plot summaries don't really belong on Wikipedia. ben 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. Ohconfucius 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main show article. --Elonka 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Toad Patrol per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are just 4 of 26 episodes. If the info on these episode is merged into the main article, info about the other 22 episodes should probably be added too, bit that will make it very long and unwieldly and wouldn't be justifed for a show of minor notability like this one. The main article already contains an overarching plotline summary for the whole series. Zaxem 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Argument for deletion is stronger in this discussion. Yanksox 21:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osh Pyozee[edit]

Dict def. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. eaolson 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That's not a recipe. It has potential to be expanded beyond a dicdef.--Kchase T 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Into what? Unless the dish has some national, cultural, or regional significance (not stated in the article, but certainly possible), this is just an article that exists to define the term. We don't have a stuffed peppers or tuna noodle casserole article, either. eaolson 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is not a dictionary definition. It is a stub. The two are not the same thing. Uncle G 10:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much as I hate using the argument, a solid precedent has been set for articles for culturally significant foods. See : Category:Korean cuisine, Category:German cuisine, Category:Chinese cuisine, Category:Indian cuisine... There are hundreds of articles on every ethnic dish you can think of. --Xrblsnggt 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xrblsnggt, the unpronouncable user ;x. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that someone may someday expand this dicdef into a stub or maybe into a short article is scrying the future. If this dish is "culturally important" that's something else the writer forgot to include. No notability shown, implied, or attempted. Tychocat 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm voting delete per Tychocat. But I will change my vote if conditions warrant. -- Slowmover 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into either Culture of Afghanistan or perhaps a new article on Afghan food. I think at this point the former would be more appropriate, unless someone volunteers to create the latter. I don't see any good reason to delete the content, but it's silly for this dish to have its own article. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cultural significance is established. A merge might be inappropriate if this is not a significant dish; I would not expect to see any mention of (for example) roast celeriac in an article on British culture, even though it's a dish numerous Britons enjoy. — Haeleth Talk 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ginkgo100. Unless there is something notable about it, it can be mentioned in an overall article about the cuisine of that country. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statesboro Storm[edit]

Seemingly non-notable youth baseball team. Less than 200 Ghits, most of which seem to just be schedules for whatever youth league they play in. fuzzy510 04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematographize[edit]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cop Killer (album)[edit]

The album in question was always entitled "Body Count", even prior to the deletion of "Cop Killer." A glance at a 1992 Billboard magazine would easily settle the point, but I don't have one handy. Also, a search on ebay for the song "Cop Killer" yields only hits for the CD entitled Body Count This is easily verifiable and should not be a dispute except for an anonymous user who continues to revert the deletion proposal.St. Jimmy 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that anonymous user would be me. i have no clue what user DJac75/St. Jimmy is talking about; (Personal attack removed). of course the album was first entitled Cop Killer but, like i wrote in the main Body Count article, Ice-T has decided to pull it and re-release it under the name Body Count. read his book, then come back and make deletion tags. --80.134.154.192 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Every removal after the first was on good grounds. You are not supposed to re-prod pages after the prod tag has been removed, no matter who removes it, but go to AfD instead. See WP:PROD. Morgan Wick 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (i.e. nom is entirely historically correct). Even if this were true, a more appropriate place to put the information would be in the article about the album as it later became as that's the one that's been around longer, surely. BigHaz 06:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as nom is entirely correct. Sorry 80.134.154.192, but I bought the album the day it came out and my version (with Cop Killer on it) is called Body Count... There was no discernable difference between the original version of the Body Count album with Cop Killer and the version without beyond the obvious change in the tracks (and the cover art)... title of album did not change though. From looking at the Talk:Body Count (album), 80.134.154.192 needs to read WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per the nom's original statement (good research btw! I'd nom you for a barnstar for that one!). I also picked up that album for a birthday present from a friend, and Isotope23 is entirely correct on both counts (album and that the anon needs to be a bit more Civil --Bschott 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, there is no record of the eponymous album ever being released under the name "Cop Killer." Nom is certainly correct. -- H·G (words/works) 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a case of an album that has the name "Body Count" but is referred to by some fans as "Cop Killer". If that's the case, then rather than deleting this, we should redirect it to the official title of the album. (Normally disambiguated names are not useful redirects, but examples like "(album)", "(film)", and "(song)" are common enough on Wikipedia that it is plausible that people will use titles like this as search terms. And redirects are cheaper than disputes.) — Haeleth Talk 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirect is appropriate, regardless of whether the anon is correct (He's not. Note, in particular, that Amazon has no used CD listing for Cop Killer. The album was reissued but it was always self-titled.) Gazpacho 00:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept, but turned into a disambiguation page.--SB | T 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rocket[edit]

Pointless. Perhaps a redirect to the SP episode, Proper Condom Use is in order? Mitch 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - no need for an article, but it would be nice to have some reference for those searching for the term. InvictaHOG 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect/Delete Either put it in the article about the episode or delete it entirely Konman72 10:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Matt Bonner If you redirect to SP, Matt Bonner fans would feel confused and hurt. 'red rocket' is not the episode's title so disambiguation would be inelegant. Bustter 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article about the episode. Mugaliens 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Induction Hypothesis[edit]

del Nonnotable albeit smart parody on intelligent design published in a private website boldly mamed "Science Creative Quarterly". Thus smacks original research heavily. `'mikka (t) 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clever, but not nearly as notable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster that inspired it. Opabinia regalis 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — as WP:NN paradoy. Ghits are 14. SynergeticMaggot 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 google hits for: "Immaculate Induction Hypothesis" -wikipedia
  • Speedy Delete senseless, a FSM replica and sourceless Arturo #7 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Rikoshi 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is properly referenced to an article in an academic journal, albeit an unconventional one. Additionally, the theory presented is an important contribution to the creation-evolution debate. John254 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main article on the FSM. It is sourced but is not notable enough for its own article. JoshuaZ 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby New York[edit]

This article really adds nothing. --South Philly 04:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 736 G-hits for "Baby New York" Philadelphia, which, while above and beyond the call of Wikipedia, seems to be a bit low for having "nation-wide recognition". Morgan Wick 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I will assume good faith with the nomination! InvictaHOG 05:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than one TV ad, I've never heard this before. And besides, the one time I was in Philadelphia, I thought it had more in common with Boston anyway. :) Kirjtc2 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another slam on Philly. --evrik 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 05:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux vs windows[edit]

No factual basis Knowing Is Half The Battle 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spoiled brats[edit]

Listcruft. —tregoweth (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. Fireplace 05:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as the sourcing required is nowhere to be seen and it's arguably not notable. However, it does spin out of Spoiled brat which is a stock character and the overuse of this particular stock character is interesting. Open to persuasion. MLA 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Wikipedia is not paper. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does that apply? --Awiseman 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unlike lists of non-fictional people, lists of fictional people are far easier to be encylopedic. While for example a list of real-life eccentrics (deleted recently) isn't encyclopedic due to there not being reliable sources declaring particular people as "eccentric", in fiction eccentric characters are usually *intended* to be so. The same applies to spoiled brats in this case: thus such a list is verifiable. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it's not necessarily easy to source as it's a list that could be open to interpretation and as it's a character trait rather than a physical feature it's going to have inherent subjectivity. If it can be made objective then I'd be happy to keep. MLA 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep in the context of it being spun out of Spoiled brat WilyD 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether someone is a spoiled brat or not is completely a matter of opinion. It's a pointless list and could really go on forever. --Awiseman 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Awiseman. --Astrokey44 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List without objective criteria. You could argue that the definition given in the article is an objective criterion. However, proper behavior and discipline vary across societies, so this list is not universally verifiable.  Cdcon  17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Completely based on a persons POV. Someone from a Metro area may say a fictional characters certain behavior is acceptable or 'not spoiled' while somone from a Rural area may say the behavior is 'spoiled'. Even the Objective criteria could be subject to POV. Discipline and behavior not only vary across societies, states, and even counties, but also between age groups. Someone who is 15 years of age may say certain behavior is completely within reason while someone who is +25 may disagree. --Bschott 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: there is no POV here at all. The "spoiled brat" is a perfectly well-defined character archetype. I defy you to find anybody, even a 15-year-old, who considers the likes of Dudley Dursley or Veruca Salt to behave "within reason". We are talking about listing fictional characters who were designed from the ground up to be as exaggeratedly spoiled and brattish as possible here, not about arbitrarily attacking random child characters that one happens not to like! — Haeleth Talk 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, what constitutes a "spoiled brat" is strictly, irrevocably, nothing but a matter of opinion. I think most kids in America are spoiled brats, but obviously, their parents would disagree with that assessment. (Would you consider all the Rugrats kids to be spoiled brats? I certainly would, even though Angelica is far more exaggerated about it than the others.) wikipediatrix 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How about Lisa Simpson? She's on the list but I don't think she's a brat. It's arbitrary. --Awiseman 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. ALL children, fictional or otherwise, display "bratty" traits at one time or another - they're children. And the meaning of "spoiled" varies wildly depending on your financial/social class. wikipediatrix 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: POV. The reference to the Old Testament advice about sparing the rod is very POV (and now removed) 205.157.110.11 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF there can be a verified definition of "spoiled brat" that all the other entries can tie into. Otherwise delete. 205.157.110.11 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would I keep List of Children? Sure. List of Fictional characters? iffy. Definitely not this one. As above, "spoiled brat" is POV. And this seems to fall somewhere between WP:CRUFT and WP:NOT. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — just seems too POV for Wikipedia American Patriot 1776 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to POV problems per above. --Eivindt@c 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WilyD's argument is a good one and addresses the indiscriminate/WP:NOT issues, but the difficulty of determining who should be included per WP:V remains. Unverifiable and uncompletable I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, what a useless category. --Stlemur 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, will just lead to arguments, listcruft Lurker talk 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to other issues raised, no evidence this will be a resource useful to other articles (spoiled brat) has a sufficiency of examples for its needs). - David Oberst 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigRedNumber[edit]

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible conspiracy perptrated by the american society of carpal tunnel surgeons. (nn spam at the very least) --Xrblsnggt 07:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, author has been been spamming this on a number of articles. Martin 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the site: "logged in users: 2. total users: 317" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah! Tapped in {{subst:afd1}} on the article page, clicked "this article's entry," and lo and behold, there's already a page here; looks like 169.232.220.177 removed the AfD notice. Delete as above; not notable, possible spam, full of speculation about a Guinness World Record, and receives all of 100 hits on Google. Dylan 02:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable. —tregoweth (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as A3, vanity, and spam. --Chris (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make money online[edit]

WP:NOT advertising. Prod removed without explanation. BryanG(talk) 06:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete spam, spam, spam. -- Gogo Dodo 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Isotope's comments on verifiability and arbitrariness of the selection criteria really carry the day here. Oh, and those of you who said "listcruft" and nothing else (including, tch, the nominator): you will put down a small item of value and then find you can't remember where it is, and when that happens, you will remember this moment and think, "Gosh, I wish I'd put more thought into what I was going to write in that AfD discussion, then maybe I'd know where I left my housekey." fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters who rarely speak[edit]

Listcruft. —tregoweth (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't imagine anyone ever needing to use this list. --ben 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is a strong precedent for lists like this; there are many existing lists similar to it in "value"; and there is nothing particularly problematic about this one. "Potential usefulness" is a vague criterion that could easily wipe out half of all WP articles. Outriggr 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncompletable, not usefull list. Medico80 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where else could they be mentioned? JIP | Talk 09:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Wikipedia is not paper. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs cleanup/clarification: Snoopy, for example, talks quite a lot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snoopy has never spoken a word. His comments are rendered in thought balloons, not speech. That Woodstock seems to understand his thoughts is simply a bit of Schulz' artistic license. wikipediatrix 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be able to talk to most animal characters. He and his brothers (Spike, Olaf, etc) can talk to each other, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified original research. No sources are cited, so I can only assume this was created via original research. Beyond that, it is yet another list based on very vague criteria ("rarely" is not quantifiable... who determines how often a character has to speak before they are no longer considered to speak "rarely"). It has nothing to do with the value of the list or how interesting it is... If it is not sourced it should go and I suspect that editors would be hard pressed to find sources that backup the contention that most of the included characters on this list "speak rarely".--Isotope23 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...or List of characters who speak a lot :-) I perfectly agree. And even if someone can prove that the character speaks "rarely" there still is a problem with criteria for inclusion, because there are infinetly many silent characters. Does Pingu speak? Medico80 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all similar lists. All fictional characters have some sort of personal attributes, and endlessly filling Wikipedia with useless lists of them serves no encyclopedic purpose that I can see. These lists do not establish notability for why these indiscrimate collections of information deserve to be tallied as lists in article form. wikipediatrix 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 --Astrokey44 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List without objective criteria.  Cdcon  16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Isotope. This is not encyclopedic, it is indiscriminate, and does not support any article. If this AfD succeeds, the redirect (List Of Characters Who Rarely Speak) ought to be deleted, too. Agent 86 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this list is essentially a mish-mash of unrelated fictional creations - non-talking animals (wow!), silent protagonists, aliens and henchmen. What the heck has Gordon Freeman got to do with Wile E Coyote? --Nydas 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, delete, delete. -- stubblyhead | T/c 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article doesn't hurt anyone. - Richardcavell 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful to keep track of characters who apparently speak, but whose silence has become a running gag. Gazpacho 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopaedic, WP not a collection of indiscriminate list info, etc. Just delete. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Listcruft of no value whatsoever. The one and only article that links to this page simply has it as an addon in the "see also" section. Highly unlikely anyone would search for such a term. Resolute 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure listcruft, and how often is rarely anyways: OR with a taste of POV. --Eivindt@c 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Isotope23,Wikipediatrix, Agent86 and Nydas, among others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Encephalon 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per many good delete reasons given. - David Oberst 04:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR, and indiscriminate: what is "rarely"? Sandstein 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 08:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhet[edit]

Non-notable piece of software (I think (?) it's software); article does not give context or importance; Google search only returns hits as the person's name "Rhet" or to the Wikipedia article itself. ben 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless evidence can be found to show its notability. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no notability shown, fails verifiability. Unable to find any third party non-trivial articles about it, the broadest usable search I can think of - reconciliation tools corporate investment accounts - turns up no mentions that I can find. Tychocat 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a hoax. Scholarly searches reveal nothing like what is written here. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. JonHarder 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, keep. - Richardcavell 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update on 27 August - article is copyright violation (thanks to Dekimasu for the information). I have therefore removed most of the content. The article stays, however. - Richardcavell 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shigemi "Eddie" Hagihara[edit]

Aikido teacher - apparent vanity or bio with no special claim to notability. Dekimasu 06:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think that being a 7th Dan and one of the founding fathers of American Aikido is probably sufficient claim to notability. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think it is a vanity. Note the "quote" section with a reference to someone else saying something. It doesn't actually say "founding father of American Aikido." Dekimasu 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less than 100 Google hits under Eddie Hagihara; none under Shigemi Hagihara. Dekimasu 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful. There are a lot of people who like to claim that they founded American martial arts systems of various kinds. Consider Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan (AfD discussion), for example. Do not take the article's sole word for things. Actually do the research and look for sources. Looking for sources is one of the primary tasks in an AFD discussion. Uncle G 09:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I did find a number of sites that mentioned him as a teacher, and an interview which described him as one of the founders of the first NY Aikido group. I agree about the people who claim to have founded systems, though: see Christopher Nathan Geary, which I afd'ed a few days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianyoumans (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09 10:41:12
  • Keep per David.Mestel. notable enough, but fails WP:NPOV, so I slapped an NPOV tag on it. Ohconfucius 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about him. There are a few forums and blogs that mention him, but nothing about him. Fails WP:V for unverifiable nature of claims. I don't mean that the claims don't exist, I mean they don't come from encyclopedic sources. Do we have multiple articles confirming anything here? Notability also questioned for having only 43 distinct Ghits for Eddie Shigemi +aikido. Tychocat 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Fails Google, Fails WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Personal vanity page, not notable enough on its own.  Cdcon  16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After trying various permutations on Google books, I managed to find one referring to what I believe to be Mr. Hagihara. It's a 2001 book called "Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere",[7] and in the introduction the authors thank an "Edi Hagihara" for his assistance. I don't think it's enough of a source to hang an article on, and it doesn't confirm the claims made in the article, but it does at least suggest that there is a sensei by that name (notable or not). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the 3 Google hits on "Edi Hagihara" got me here [8]; much of the text of the article is lifted from this site. Dekimasu 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, given the lack of other sources, I'd say Delete as a copyvio, with no prejudice against re-creation from better sources, if they can be found. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, c'mon. This guy isn't that hard to find on the net. Try this guy here, who trained with him and talks about his importance, or this interview, which mentions him as one of the founder of Aikido in the New York City area. Or here, where he is listed as part of an honorary committee of "senior instructors or members of the ECR who have made significant contributions to the growth and promulgation of Aikido". Or here, where he is mentioned in an interview with another old aikido fogey. I don't care greatly whether the article is kept or not, but Hagihara clearly exists and had some sort of small significance in the history of American aikido. The question is whether that notability is large enough for an article. --Brianyoumans 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I described it accurately - 100 Google hits, not all of which are this guy. I know he exists, but the text and pictures were lifted from his website (vanity), and the "old fogeys" who trained with him are pretty likely to call him important. See Tychocat's mention of WP:V above. Dekimasu 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems notable within the martial arts community, but the article is not verifiable. I would like to see some more templates applied to it, also. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Geography related philosophies[edit]

Baffling stub of a list with no links in or out, other than as an item on a template which isn't on this page. Perhaps some Wiki philosopher can explain the links between these items and geography, but there';s nothing here suggesting this is anything other than a juxtaposition of two broad subjects hoping for a loose connection, possibly by means of OR. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete — Agreed. K-UNIT 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs)
  • Speedy delete, entirely uninformative and lacking in context, therefore patent nonsense. Not closed to the suggestion that it might be possible to write an article about the relationship of geography and philosophies, though most philosophical systems claim to represent truths about human universals that do not change by location or climate. This ain't it, though. Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above. wikipediatrix 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom --Astrokey44 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that it's speediable, although it does seem like original research. - Richardcavell 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm really curious about the writer's rationale -- if "humanism" is a geography-related philosophy, then what philosophical tradition would not belong on this list? -- Visviva 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Club[edit]

Strongly suspected hoax. Inherently fails WP:V. "Historical clandestine society" Believes in the power of a nice cup of tea and claims its origins in the Primeval Soup of Beyond Time Xrblsnggt 07:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Searches for "platinum club" only turns up every credit card and strip club in the world; search for "platinum club"+"clandestine historical society" gets only one hit, this article. I think we can pander to its well-deserved reptuation of obscurity just this once. Tychocat 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-patent nonsense . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uncited and unreferenced; claims seem extraordinary - searches come up with no supporting material. Kuru talk 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clandestine society with secret rites - I think that we should show proper respect for their wish for secrecy! TerriersFan 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant vandalism. - Richardcavell 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts Of Another Dimension[edit]

Looks like hoax. Medico80 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Fails WP:V, and looks like original research. For a band that reputedly had a #1 single in all countries where it was released, I get two ghits for its name, neither of which has to do with the band. Band members include cartoon characters, timeline includes anachronistic references, and in general, I can't believe I spent the same amount of time researching this article as I do for real bands that will some day need the time. Tychocat 09:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism. Among other things, claim to have released an album in 1469 entitled Go Fuck Yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Norris (physiotherapist)[edit]

vanity spam --Xrblsnggt 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Advertisment and vanity. Medico80 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - As is, I agree that the article is lousy. However, he has written a number of books, some of which seem fairly well regarded; it might be worth having someone rewrite the article from scratch and improve it. --Brianyoumans 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can source the notability of his books. --Harris 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. only 66 distinct Ghits, begging question of notability beyond the relentless self-promotion. WP is not a free webhost, and the only link for this spam is back to subject's homepage. Speaking of the books, it should be noted that having a book published is not a criterion for notability, since anyone can get a book published. In this case, three books by the subject are listed on Amazon, one ranking somewhere about 2.4 millionth in sales, the other two reaching 800K or so. Notability might be shown by the books being made into a motion picture, taught at universities or schools, multiple third-party reviews, et al (see WP:BK). As such, nothing is shown to meet WP:BK. That the subject seems "fairly well regarded" is nice, and a state to which we all aspire. However, this does not meet [WP:BIO]].Tychocat 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Googling "Christopher M. Norris" just generated 909 ghits for me. --Brianyoumans 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment True, but many of those are not related to the subject, and if you check, you'll find that only about 252 of the Ghits generated by your search are distinct. For my part, I should have noted that I Googled "christopher norris"+physiotherapist. My bad. Tychocat 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment his books ranked in the 15-19k range per Amazon.com, which is pretty respectable for specialist health book. Ohconfucius
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Vanity page, not notable enough for an article.  Cdcon  16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable vanity advertisement. Leuko 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep authors with books published by non-vanity presses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears kosher. Serious author and expert in his field Ohconfucius 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a published author notable in his field of expertise. Yamaguchi先生 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Operator (band)[edit]

Not Notable; text is advertising. Their big claim to notability is opening for a Hilary Duff tour (ugh!) I vote we wait until they have a hit single before we allow drek like this in... --Brianyoumans 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. BigHaz 07:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. They've verifiabily completed a national tour of Canada [9], and have been featured in multiple media outlets (MuchMusic in the previous link, Netscape Entertainment, an appearance on Canadian MTV, CBC. That's two meets of WP:MUSIC minimum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with complete rewrite per BDJeff. Obviously, this article is an ad, and almost certainly a copyvio from the band's official site. However, Jeff has pointed out how they pass WP:MUSIC, and I'm with him ont hat one. Also, I love that they got their name from a great White Stripes song (though, to be fair, there are few White Stripes songs that aren't great). -- Kicking222 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how "going on a national tour" in WP:MUSIC is usually interpreted; it certainly wasn't their tour, they were opening for a segment (Canada) of a longer tour by a major act. I've seen plenty of opening acts who were just hired to fill some space and not detract from the main act. Here is a review of the Duff show in London, Ontario, with all of 3 lines at the bottom on Hello Operator, one of which came from one of the band members being local. This review mentions the fact that they opened the Calgary show, but otherwise ignores them. As for multiple appearances in media... well, the Hilary Duff tour press release got covered a few places, yeah. But if you look down the list of sites you get googling, say, "hello operator fan" - there is just no buzz about these guys. And they were supposed to have an album out 'in the spring', and it hasn't appeared. They are a MySpace band.... --Brianyoumans 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was discussion at WP:MUSIC regarding that, and nothing came of it in terms of forcing interpretation to headlining shows. Even without the touring, however, they reach the multiple media mentions guideline for WP:MUSIC, as I've demonstrated above. Buzz is irrelevant, it's about finding verifiable information to assert the nobility in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not an issue; there are far less notable things that have passed AfD. Also, bad faith nomination.  Cdcon  16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's possible to make a bad faith nomination for deletion of a band who's official page is on MySpace. In any event, there's no evidence here of a bad faith nomination. Please refrain from such personal attacks against other posters. WilyD 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that said, a national tour is apparently a criterion at WP:MUSIC, thus this lousy band gets by on the skin of its teeth. WilyD 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've rewritten and stubbed this for now so it's at least a verifiable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. These guys don't even have an album out. Well, I suppose they are going to squeak by. I have been doing a lot of deleting recently, I should have gone over WP:MUSIC first before AFDing this one. I have improved the article a little more, and I guess I am changing my vote to an apathetic Neutral. --Brianyoumans 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Band did a national tour as an opening act to a well-known performer. Meets the notability bar. Zaxem 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Acker[edit]

WP:NN non-notable actor, having had the part of 'Norman the Doorman' in Disney TV series and apparently a minor role in movie 'Moonbase. 1470 Ghits, mostly to dead link where these appear to refer to this Anthony Acker Ohconfucius 07:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, nn actor. Wickethewok 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO, no multiple third-party non-trivial articles about him. I get only 257 distinct Ghits, mostly directory listings, but I'm not quibbling. Tychocat 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and article doesn't attempt to assert any notability. Ryanminier 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, despite his appearances in Scary Movie 2 and Moonbase according to IMDb. The link doesn't, however, mention his involvement in Suite Life. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn actor. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Boyellau[edit]

WP:NN subject was Governor of Pondicherry for 1 year. 90 Ghits, including several from wiki. Page likely to remain a stub forever. Ohconfucius 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I note the stub itself says there is a dearth of information about the guy, which I take at face value. I don't know how you're checking your Google hits, but I'm showing only 16 distinct hits. Tychocat 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information in the article is already in the Pondicherry article. Ryanminier 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostre Transmitter[edit]

A contested prod of an unremarkable and most certainly non notable transmitter. Also including

Grbre Transmitter
Deanovec Transmitter
Delimora Transmitter Nuttah68 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. As it can be seen below, the debate was not primarily focused on the noteworthiness of the subject of the article but a lot of the keep recommendations were " per Rebecca ", and indeed, JzG also implied that he would have suggested a delete under more peaceful circumstances. For the record CSD G4 does not hold, as you can see by reading the restored deleted versions from October 2005 that at that stage the subject was only a university leader, but now she is a nationwide leader of NUS - G4 applies to things recreated with similar (or worse) content than when it was previously deleted. Perhaps a proper debate at a later time when we are all focussed on content would be prudent. Feel free to inquire about my decision. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Jackson[edit]

Vanity, lacks information on the importance of the subect & Vandlism (Removed tags but nothing fixed) Feedyourfeet 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. This is the second article I've edited recently that appears to have been AfDd by this guy today as WP:POINT retaliation for having voted to delete Stephen Battaglia and Zazz, both of which were authored by the nominator. As to Jackson's notability, she is the current president of a major national union, something which is clearly evident in the article. The "tags" referred to were bogus verifiability tags that kept being re-added despite requests to explain what, if anything, was actually disputed. Rebecca 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, an old version of this article was successfully AfDd last October, but that version was a) before Jackson reached her current office and was still non-notable, and b) an attack article. Rebecca 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. agree. Jpeob 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article had been put up for AFD and was deleted before. It's not in bad faith as Rebecca is trying to twist, Many people voted in Stephen Battaglia and Zazz and i have nominated 2 out of how many users and article, The student union which she is president has 2 other past presidents that have there own page, 1 is now a politician but the other has the same ammount of info as Rose. The List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia is also up for AFD. Feedyourfeet 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The AfD'd article was substantially different. It was deleted without prejudice, as I understand it. Also, the article does make an assertion of notability; "vandalism" isn't a reason to delete an article and what you allege wasn't vandalism anyway. The prod tag says, "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." The person who removed the prod provided references on the talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It was not the prod tag i was refering to. Feedyourfeet 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, if it was the verify and importance tags, CHANLORD made an assertion of importance and 4 references on the talk page. And even if it was "vandalism," that isn't a reason to delete the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4 as recreated material from an AFD. --Xrblsnggt 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new page was created with different content, so it doesn't qualify for a CSD-G4 (the original page was created before the person was elected, the new page created after, for one). --Interiot 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look at WP:CSD#G4, this was not a "substantially identical copy." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would advocate deletion - student leaders change annually and usually go on to obscurity - but the fact that this is self-evidently a bad-faith nomination indicates a speedy close. Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are incorrect. Feedyourfeet 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think JzG is nearly spot-on. --Interiot 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The nom was likely retribution, but the discussion should not be to judge the intentions of the nominator. Otherwise, all noms could descend into bad faith witch hunts. --Xrblsnggt 09:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't typically question JzG but I can't understand this position. If an article merits deletion then surely it merits deletion regardless of the motives behind the nomination. MLA 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Before reading the latest comments I was about to vote Delete based on WP:BIO - however after reading JzG's comment re it's G4 qualification (I lack the ability to view the content of deleted pages) I see no alternative. - Glen 08:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page as it stood when it was AfD'd is visible here. The next version was not a recreation (either way, a closing admin would be able to verify whether CSD-G4 votes are valid). --Interiot 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This makes no sense, as there is absolutely no way the (relatively strict) G4 criteria can be attached to this article. An attack article was created in October 2005 about Jackson, who was then president of the student union at the University of Sydney. It was, entirely justifiably, deleted. In the meantime, Jackson has become president of the National Union of Students, which has put her on the national stage, and a neutral, verifiable article has been written about her. This is not a situation covered in any way, shape or form, by G4. Rebecca 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete per WP:NN, and speedy per G4. Being student politician certainly isn't notable, and president of the NUS would only very slightly increase her notability. I reckon she would still have to cross the hurdle of party nomination for a safe parliamentary seat to become notable. Ohconfucius 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. You're perfectly entitled to vote delete based on your own personal bar for notability, but please stop misusing the speedy deletion criteria. Rebecca 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I thought the previous AfD version was better, certainly more interesting and noteworthy. Oh, and I think you may be overstating the importance of the NUS as "a major union" Ohconfucius 09:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, it was also utterly defamatory and completely unsourced. Please don't confuse the matter of whether you like the subject with their notability. Rebecca 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm not confused. I [edit: could probably] agree that the office is notable. The subject is not notable, not yet, anyway. Those two are quite distinct, just like separate legal identity of a company and its members. My reference to the relative importance of the NUS is that Australian student politics is a subset of (>)Australian politics>Australian people>Australia>Southern Hemisphere>the world, and it's important to keep that in perspective. Ohconfucius
  • Keep, I agree with Rebecca. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not convinced the office is notable, but I am convinced deletion is premature. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment seems inconsistent WP:NOT wiki is not a crystal ball. She may go on to do other/greater things, but that doesn't mean her entry deserves to be kept. Ohconfucius
  • Delete with a comment. Since there is an article on the student union in question, perhaps a section of that article should be devoted to a list of officers past and present. As it stands, I feel that this person does not meet the notability criteria for her own article. --Cassavau 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recreated this article earlier this year without ever seeing the previous version, so the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply. Secondly, Rose Jackson is the current president of a National student union that represents over 38 seperate university unions in Australia, which in turn would represent hundreds of thousands of students. And to give you some perspective Gemma Tumelty is the current president of the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom and has a page on Wikipedia. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. And don't misuse Speedy criteria. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Jackson is not notable, and I'm not sure Tumelty is either. wikipediatrix 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Parenthetically, I get the feeling we'll see this article again, even if deleted. Tychocat 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently, the subject does not appear to fail vanity or non-notability guidelines. Be sure to cite sources, because this sort of information should be verifiable.  Cdcon  16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an easy keep. I am puzzled that this AfD discussion contains everything from speedy keep to speedy delete. - Richardcavell 00:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:BIO.  ALKIVAR™ 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Student leaders not notable, as above. If the office is notable enough to have an article, put it on there. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please it is notable not speedy deletion criteria Yuckfoo 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get 50 hits on the Australia New Zealand database for Ms Jackson all related to education. That makes her notable enough for mine rather than just another student politician. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca and Capitalistroadster this person is notable enough. RFerreira 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. --Myles Long 22:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Rebecca.--cj | talk 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. Sufficiently notable and newsworthy. Dreadlocke 05:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not warrant a seperate article. Her position only needs to be mentioned on the NUS article. Rafy 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - per Rebecca. (JROBBO 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Australian student politicians aren't inherently notable, and Rose certainly isn't. Their articles are merely a trove of unverifiability at which vandals congregate. Slac speak up! 05:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aplus.Net[edit]

WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. This page is linked to Five Pillars of Online Success, prod'ed 9 August, which would support the fact that this company is spamming wiki. The company itself scores 1.36million Ghits, most of which are commercial in nature, so it appears they have succeeded in spamming the internet. Ohconfucius 07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam. --Xrblsnggt 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like spam to me! Wickethewok 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Ryanminier 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Has verifiability issues as well. Also, Dnate76, please add comments to the bottom of the page, not the top. Resolute 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert copy. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Aplus.Net article is not an advertisement, it is a legitimate description of a successful company, much like the entries for Chevrolet, AT&T, Starbucks, etc. It specifically promotes no services and asks for no solicitation or business. Its tone is encyclopedic, not promotional, in concordance with Wikipedia's policies. Just because this company provides web hosting does not mean a description of that company is spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by dnate76 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PELock[edit]

Spam. Not very much here but random, low-level usage details and a link to a vendor's web site. -- Xrblsnggt 08:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping Project[edit]

Is a neologism and dictionary definition. Prod removed without comment, so taking to AfD. --ColourBurst 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable neologism. --Xrblsnggt 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism, and it doesn't even involve strippers. JIP | Talk 09:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophilia Act 1983[edit]

WP:HOAX I have trailed Google with the following searches without finding anything on this specific alleged legislation: "Paedophilia Act 1983", "UK legislation paedophilia" and suggest that it may be misquoted or simply a hoax Ohconfucius 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Have moved the page as it spelt incorrectly - should be Paedophilia Act 1983 - alleged UK act so British spelling) - Glen 09:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no specific "Paedophilia Act" or anything like it in the 1983 table of statutes. Might be a name given popularly to parts of another Act - perhaps Mental Health Act 1983 - but can't find any evidence for it, and that act doesn't appear to cover paedophilia. Shimgray | talk | 09:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Having researched the Mental legislation of the UK pretty extensively I can say with 100% certainty no such (UK) act exists. Author is confused I assume - dont think it really merits redirection either. - Glen 09:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely made-up law. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Thanks/wangi 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I actually saw this get created and was about to tag it for speedy deletion but somebody beat me to it. If the article had more than 1 sentence then maybe it could be kept but as it stands there is no info here. Konman72 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zzuuzz. Author seems to be confusing mental health legislation from 1983 and the Criminal Justice Act of 1988. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:HOAX. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the acts which cover this are: Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1963, Protection of Children Act 1978, Criminal Justice Act 1988 (there may be other more recent ones but I don't have to write essays on them anymore) Yomangani 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to our article, it is 1964. ☺ Uncle G 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is either a hoax or it's just plain wrong. - Richardcavell 23:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (law student)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDWinXP[edit]

Spam. Author has removed an advert and wikify tag, but article still reads as an promotional flyer. Also including

Edspice Nuttah68 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the original author has now removed the AfD tag three times. Nuttah68 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Michael Lagow[edit]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furious Publishing[edit]

Non-notable site, does not pass WP:WEB - no Alexa rank, domain only registered 30th July 2006 (as per User:Matticus78). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and the dead[edit]

delete per WP:NN defunct aussi skinhead band with a core following of about 150 skinheads. 708,000 Ghits, almost all for the movie and TV series of the same name. There is also a Bay area band on Youtube; andWP:MUS - they have released, AFAICT, no album but an EP and few live bootlegs Ohconfucius 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I get only nine distinct Ghits from "quick and the dead"+"skinhead band". Fails WP:MUSIC for having no multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties, no charted hits, no national tours. Article also fails WP:V and appears to be original research. Tychocat 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Peta 05:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect by Adrian. Please note that the nominator of this AfD is the only person who has ever contributed to the article in question. The article is obviously an unnecessary and accidental duplicate, and the redirect was the correct thing to do. - Richardcavell 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Araras (São Paulo)[edit]

Create in duplicity with the article Araras Gcoliveira 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zero[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC guidelines. Only claims of notability include being part of a non-notable band (no allmusic profile) and directing a non-notable film (which doesn't seem to even have a relevant Imdb page [10]). Also, 31 relevant Google results [11]. Also nominating:

--TBCTaLk?!? 09:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed DuRante[edit]

Not Notable. He has won an awful lot of academic awards, but as far as I can verify online he has had one short play produced, as part of a set of four, in an Off-Broadway theater (Playwright's Horizons) in 1995; and he had a (presumably) short play or piece published in an anthology published in 1996. (I wasn't able to find the other groups or venues he lists, although one of them might be a children's theatre group in NYC.) And he has made some short web films, one of which almost won a film award given out by the NYU film department. Maybe I am being a little harsh, but I don't think this guy merits an article at this point. --Brianyoumans 09:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete unreferenced article .given time, he could pass WP:NN Ohconfucius 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO - no multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties, no national awards. Article is unsourced and appears to be vanity, and WP is not a free webhost for his resume. I get only 71 Ghits for "ed durante" for english-only websites. I agree, we may well be seeing significant things from Mr. DuRante, but WP is not a crystal ball. Tychocat 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester University Theatre[edit]

Student societies are rarely notable enough to warrant their own article ("rarely" does of course mean there are exceptions). This particular article claims national and international acclaim but without a citation. I therefore present this article for your consideration. kingboyk 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the notability can't be verified then it's a non-issue. ben 12:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I get only 33 Ghits for "Leicester University Theatre", mostly theatre listings, which appears to undercut claims of notability. No multiple third-party non-trivial articles. Fails WP:V, and appears to be original research. Tychocat 11:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks non-notable, and smells like a thinly-disguised copyvio [12]. - makomk 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, note deletion discussion for a very similar group, for which the outcome was "Delete." Marc Shepherd 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See WP:MUS --Ssilvers 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmaisland.co.nr[edit]

Non-notable web site. "Under construction", no claim per WP:WEB, no Alexa rank. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 11:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alpacinos[edit]

Judging by their website they are an up and coming band - but I don't think they've upped and come far enough yet to fit the criteria in WP:BAND. I'd say delete now and recreate if and when they have achieved sufficient success to warrant an article. Spondoolicks 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fax software[edit]

Article appears to be little more than a list of external links and comparison/shopping guide; violates WP:NOT. MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Keep. Practically every software genre has both "List of" and "Comparison of" pages; this page combines both. It follows the same style as the others, and is totally in keeping with existing Wikipedia practice. Most of the links may currently be external, but I suggest that this is because the subject of fax software is relatively undeveloped in Wikipedia, and many of them will be turned into internal links as time goes by. Of course, some of those links may be unnecessary; maybe the list could be pruned a bit. If this page is deemed to be violating the policy quoted, then so are hundreds of other long-standing pages which as far as I can see are very active and have never been proposed for deletion. I contributed most of the content on that page. Rwxrwxrwx 12:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rwxrwxrwx and Category:Lists of software. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to me, the biggest difference is that few of the products listed here have their own article, compared to List of file sharing software, which provides wikilinks to encyclopedia articles, not just external links. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason to create articles for the fax software, not to delete the list ;) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Rwxrwxrwx's arguement does set this page apart from most wikipedia listcruft. Having said that List of file sharing software should definately be deleted as it performs no function that the category "File sharing programs" doesn't already. --IslaySolomon 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the page is encyclopedic and the articles take time to write. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable and encyclopedic. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Xoloz 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Brigance[edit]

This article was PRODed, despite being previously AFDed. Reason given for PROD was: Not notable, less than 150 Google hits. Previous AFD's in September 2005 (result: keep) and December 2005 (result: no consensus) seemed to agree that the article needs major cleanup. The fact that major cleanup hasn't happened could be seen as supporting the idea that the subject isn't notable.Whitejay251 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup Brigance's IEP stuff is used worldwide and in the US by a ton of school districts to assess young childrens needs. I believe "Brigance" itself is a registered trademark, this link shows just some of the material available from him. I will accept responsiblity for cleanup and/or adding to the article if I can find anything substantial about him. DrunkenSmurf 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrunkenSmurf. The article establishes notability, and is verifiable. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per drunkensmurf we have a million articles and most need cleanup so fix it Yuckfoo 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Arredondo[edit]

I do not see any encyclopedic relevance in the article, but please prove me wrong. Aleph-4 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Speedy if possible as a WP:VANITY page. --Kinu t/c 13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies if the word "vanity" in this context seemed insensitive, in light of the circumstances. However, WP:NOT a memorial site for information by family members. --Kinu t/c 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sad, but sadly trapped by WP:NN Ohconfucius 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regrets echoing Ohconfucius. WP is not a memory garden. And while it's a shame that this young man did not live to achieve notablity, we can't confer it upon him artificially. --Pagana 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, not a memorial. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a noteworthy subject. Michael Hays 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE RainbowCrane 07:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user is not an admin. I Concur with deletion consensus, and have deleted -- Samir धर्म 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beef-A-Roo[edit]

WP:CORP Very small restaurant chain with nine locations. John Nagle 05:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinque northern[edit]

Not Notable. Awards, grants... not much else. His most recent short got honorable mention in a student film contest in 2003. An earlier one played some festivals, but evidently didn't win any awards or get distributed anywhere other than festivals. Anyone think he deserves an article? --Brianyoumans 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going with Keep here, having won an award and with the Filmmaker's Magazine profile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one. The article needs citations to prove notability, but I think someone who has gotten those awards will have been covered in notable publications. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Paint: Paintball 2.0[edit]

Delete. Non-notable game, no page on Mobygames. Buzawz 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game does exist... http://digitalpaint.planetquake.gamespy.com/news.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by GCP (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 August 2006

And it is on the List of free first-person shooters page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.41 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 August 2006

  • Delete as an advertisement for a non-notable game. "Digital Paint: Paintball 2.0" gets less than 150 total Google hits and only 33 unique hits. -- Kicking222 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason there aren't many hits is because it's often referred to by the full name. Results 1 - 10 of about 8,130 for "Digital Paint" "Paintball 2". (0.81 seconds). Results 1 - 10 of about 9,720 for "Digital Paint" "Paintball II". (0.18 seconds). There are about as many people playing this game online as Doom 3.
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, game is not notable enough. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn (Liberatore, 2006). 11:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GONGO[edit]

91 Google hits, various made up awards, stupid title - yes, it's another Attack of the Stupid Hoaxes. DJ Clayworth 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user User:Insiderman was responsible for the overwriting of a semilegit (Although lacking sources) page with his load of ERRANT nonsense, as can be seen here: [14]. 68.39.174.238 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In view of this I withdraw the nomination. DJ Clayworth 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kobielewski[edit]

No actual information about this family, completely unreferenced (and I could not find them in the Polish wikipedia, either).
A previous article "Kobielewski" was deleted as the result of a prod, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Kobielewski Aleph-4 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page contains very little content, a page with the same name was recently deleted, and Wikipedia is not a Genealogical entries. --Porqin 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as for Porquin. --Cyclopia 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A1, due to lack of context. Eerily, it sounds a lot like the A1 example at WP:CSD... --Kinu t/c 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The A1 example also draws a distinction between lack of content and lack of context; this article could be expanded, if the statement in it is true. - Richardcavell 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, single purposed accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AFD notice was on the Taylor Ware article but the nominator didn't create this page. It was another user that created this page.

Taylor Ware[edit]

  • Keep - Taylor is a finalist on America's Got Talent. If Bianca Ryan, Celtic Spring (other finalists on the show) get to stay and not be brought up for deletion, then why not Taylor? 6:02 8 August 2006 Fanficgurl (UTC)
  • Keep - Reality show contestants are not notable unless they go on to do something notable on their own.She has. Taylor's preformed at the world famous Grand Ole Opry with Riders In The Sky.Isn't just being on the show doing something notable?She made it by herself.No one just said well your a cute little girl you made it.She's been on TV on a hit show .Finalist.For a millon bucks.I agree with everyonelse about why this article should be kept."Reality show contestants are not notable unless they go on to do something notable on their own"would have to then apply for all AGT aticles for finalists to be deleted.Which should not happen just because you don't like Taylor Ware. we7888
  • Keep - I agree with the above comment. Furthermore, what is the rationale for deleting this artice? What is wrong with it, or why is it inappropriate? If the article has been nominated for deletion simply because someone doesn't like Taylor Ware or doesn't like the creator of the article (which happens to be me), that's a lame excuse. Have the courage to tell us why the article should be deleted. If the article violates any of Wikipedia's policies or standards, please state what they are so that they can be corrected if possible. Otherwise, if this article deserves deletion, I think it will be followed by a flood of nominations for other articles to be deleted, articles that need to be on Wikipedia. By the way, I have no personal connection with Taylor. I simply wrote the article because I thought it was needed. I've contributed to articles about other AGT finalists and to other articles in general. I haven't written anything negative about any of them. I did remove a few non-NPOV comments, and if anyone sees any non-NPOV comments in Taylor Ware's article, by all means modify them. I do suspect that my removal of non-NPOV material from other contestants' articles is what prompted someone to nominate the Taylor Ware article for deletion. If that's true, my only response is: grow up. Ward3001 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. TheKillerAngel 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove-No offense, but this article doesn't have enough information about her. If the person who wrote this wants to keep it, they should put a bit more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.57.43 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 August 2006
  • Keep If you're a finalist on a popular reality show like AGT, that makes you notable enough to me. Kirjtc2 12:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To the person who said the article doesn't have enough information: That's why it's called a "stub" until more information can be obtained. AGT finalists are not allowed to communicate with the media (including Wikipedia or its contributors) until the competition is complete. The info in the article is the main info that is publicly available. To my knowledge there are no photos of her available that are not copyrighted. More information will certainly be added as it becomes available. Until then, the "not enough information" argument isn't sufficient grounds for deletion. Ward3001 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well I kind of agree with the person who says this aritcle doesn't have enough information, but I think it should stay here. Over time, as she gets more popular, more information will be added. If Wikipedia gives this article a chance, this could be a good article. I also agree with the above comment. Since she is under the age of majority, there is limited information that we can post online. I think this article deserves a chance. theresa123123123 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepShe is a finalists on a nationally televised program. Other finalists have articles so I don't see why she can't as well. --Edgelord 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Why does it look like the reason for deletion was a keep vote? Look at the first edit of the page. It seems as though the nominater didn't even want to delete it, just to say they wanted to keep it. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reality show contestants are not notable unless they go on to do something notable on their own. Nothing listed in the article meets WP:MUSIC, which is the standard I think she should be held to. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable person, no reason to delete article. --Wizardman 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torx (skill game)[edit]

Non Encyclopedic game, unsourced and non-notable. FancyPants 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Melck[edit]

Article talks about a career academic who was on a number of committees, but does not address WP:BIO, I think. ben 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't have any claims to notability, it is also a vanity article. --Porqin 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vice Chancellor and Principal of University of South Africa (Unisa) [15]. Needs editing though. Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, although he is the former Vice Chancellor[16], but still notable enough. --BrownHairedGirl 12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties - he's quoted in a few papers but nothing is written about him per se; only 94 distinct Ghits for "antony melck". He's co-authored a book, but this does not automatically lend to notability, and there's nothing I can find to show the book itself meets notability for WP:BK, i.e., adopted as a textbook, adapted for a major motion picture, etc. That he was a vice chancellor and principal of Univeristy of South Africa unfortunately are not factors to meeting WP guidelines and policies. Tychocat 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - also, original writer is Amelck, so the article appears to be vanity. Tychocat 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not really established, and it is unverifiable. And vanity. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Former head of a significant university. An encyclopedicly notable individual. Zaxem 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted per A1/G1. Srose (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Secondary College[edit]

Speedy Delete. This article is non existent. It has two lines which are pure mindless vandalism. This page has nothing substantial. Merely "Jo'ash smells like a poop. Brad is cool" Jpeob 12:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per above, A1/G1. --Porqin 12:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Legends of Dune -- Samir धर्म 11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrethgir[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary for a language that only exists in a Sci-Fi book. Dancarney 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the term is important, it can be mentioned inside the books article. --Porqin 12:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it's important enough even to be listed as trivia in one of the articles on the books. ben 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge If it must be deleted then merge it with the Legends of Dune article or one of the books. Konman72 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and Merge It occurs frequently enough in the Legends to deserve at least mention somewhere in an article on those books. SandChigger 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfx sector[edit]

non-notable, no context, POV, unencyclopedic. prod was removed without explanation. --DrTorstenHenning 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB then, and even more now. "was a short-lived gfx site which experienced sucsess in mid 2005 to early 2006", "Mid 2005 is considered as the prime of Gfx Sector with more than 800 members." --Porqin 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody in their right mind would expect to find this in an encyclopaedia ben 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battelle, John[edit]

Delete. This article already covers the information on the John Battelle page and I have added the information on this page to the talk page of the older article. Furthermore, it does not follow WP:Naming#People. Jpeob 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Duplicated article not following the naming convention as per above. --Porqin 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --BrownHairedGirl 12:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we could simply place a redirect to the John Battelle page on the article. Maybe that would suffice. Or would it be an unneeded redirect RE: WP:Naming#People?Jpe|ob 07:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wright (computer scientist)[edit]

Non-notable computer scientist, apparent vanity page; I have just a added link on the page to his CV[17], which I think establishes him a competent and well-qualified IT man, but fails WP:NN. BrownHairedGirl 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Has some real accomplishments but nothing to meet WP:BIO. JChap T/E 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kudos for saving the leap second... erm, helping to save the leap second, but it looks like they haven't changed Greenwich Mean Time to Mancunian Mean Time in honour of it, and isn't enough to meet WP:BIO either. -- Slowmover 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete.  Can we hurry this up, I can't wait to see the look on his face... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.40 (talk • contribs) 
*Delete.  Looks like the "Time Lord"'s remaining moments of Wiki fame can be counted in ... leap seconds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.2 (talk • contribs) 
*Delete.  Delete, delete, delete. Say it with me people..."delete". This is of no value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.40 (talk • contribs) 
*Retain.  We need jokers like this to keep everyone else feeling superior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.40 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for WP:VAIN and for failing to meet WP:BIO. Tychocat 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Wikipedia folks. It's Paul Wright(computer scientist) here. The original URL (Paul Wright) is better now with a list of additional notable Paul Wrights. More the better :) If you want to delete this new page as well you are welcome to do so, the information contained within it is freely available elsewhere and easily googlable so it will not make much difference to myself or your readers either way. Not sure why the people that are doing this are not identifiable though? Please note that I have identified myself, including at the original creation of the article. It also seems strange for the anonymous initiator of this deletion to first add a link to my CV and then list the page for deletion immediately afterwards? Anyway, all the data in the article is correct and verifiable and passed the various tests including notability 6 months ago when it was created and accepted then; so I am happy with it, but if you would like to delete it please go ahead. Best wishes and keep up the good work but please encourage users to identify themselves so that the community can become more credible. Cheers, Paul Wright.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish education[edit]

This article is (with only a few minor edits), a copy of Education in Belgium. Is was created by Lucas Richards who is now blocked. It is true that education in Belgium is regulated seperatly by the three communities, but the system is about the same in the three communities, with only different names and some minor differences. I think it is best to have a parallel description of education in the different communities of Belgium in one article. So I suggest deleting this article, and improving Education in Belgium, especially including more information about education in the French-speaking part of Belgium. -- Stijn Vermeeren 12:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As per above, repetition. Jpeob 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --LucVerhelst 10:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7. kingboyk 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bertrand[edit]

non-notable teenager. Speedy was contested, sorry for having to clutter AFD with this kind of article. --DrTorstenHenning 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable. Jpeob 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google turns up 2 hits for his name + this law firms name (no sources). Being an "heir" to a law firms fortune does not make one notable. --Porqin 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Porqin. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pseudomonas (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete "One of the only underaged persons to be admitted to nightclubs." Even if you disregard those admitted with fake IDs, uh, no. JChap T/E 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7, where is the claim of notability? --Kinu t/c 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was meh. I could relist, but what would be the point? This article, if I'd come across it instead of BrightLights and Porquin, would never have come within a mile of AfD ... anyone can redirect. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cph 2000[edit]

This article is obselete. The title of the new Jet album is Shine On. --- BrightLights 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, cleanup -- Samir धर्म 12:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Cleveland[edit]

delete per WP:NN. "Hilary Cleveland" scored 376Ghits, although mostly relevant and has been active Republican lobbyist. Alternatively to merge with James Colgate Cleveland, who has also a one-line wiki article. Ohconfucius 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Verifiable sources have been provided and much better notability has been established. Page probably still needs some work, but seems nationally notable as revised and cited. Good update. Scorpiondollprincess 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Weak Keep due to the revision to the bio and aditon references / news articles.--blue520 09:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave As an active professor she holds some interest to students who might wish to take her class and want to know more about her. A wikipedia search would aid them in that. She was the former Town Moderator of New London for a number of years. I'm not sure to what extent local government officials are permitted to be on Wikipedia.

Hilary Cleveland made both national and local news when she spoke strongly against Bush and supported Howard Dean in the primary (her late husband James Colgate Cleveland was a Republican Congressman and the family were (perhaps still are) friends with the elder President Bush). She later became the head of the GOP Women for Kerry steering commitee #REDIRECT [[18]] though she only had brief involvement with the campaign. She is by no means an active Republican lobbyist. Featured in Newsweek, Boston Globe, among other publications: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/12/a_telling_shift_in_allegiance?mode=PF http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339604/

If she is still deemed nn by the community-I'm not sure where the line in the sand is though personally I favor inclusion in most all cases-I support the motion to merge with James Colgate Cleveland. Perches 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of new information and revision to the bio with references, it does appear that I missed something: Whilst I don't think she would qualify as notable by being a professor, nor by being anti-bush republican again is not particularly notable. However her active involvement with Stern and Kerry, especially as head of GOP for women probably swings it for me. I would now move to stay the execution. Ohconfucius 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per current references - notability established. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article redirected to arrow poisons. Closed as moot. Smerdis of Tlön 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inee[edit]

delete per obscurity WP:NN or WP:HOAX. 258,000Ghits, majority of which as acronyns for different organisations. No relevant credible listings for "inee" as an arrow ppoison. Article unsourced and likely remain a stub forever if not deleted. Ohconfucius 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary - Changed my mind after a google search for "inee poison" but I can't see it being more than a dicdef Yomangani 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless referenced. On the one hand, makers and users of arrow poison may be inconspicuous on Google. The spelling seems suspect, especially if "ee" is used to transcribe the sound of [i:]; this looks like an Anglicism outside of usual scholarly transcription conventions for unwritten languages, and makes it look like a hoax. It could be expanded if authentic, and as such would be a valid stub. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Apparently not a hoax. Turned this into a stub based on the results of the Google search, and our own article on the Strophanthus genus. As such it is a valid stub. We need a general article on arrow poisons, and if so this could be merged into it. Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inspired by your suggestion I've created arrow poisons and included the content of the expanded inee, so I have to change my mind again and say Redirect to Arrow poisons. Yomangani 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, redirect. Be sure to get the double redirect now at onaya Thanks. Suggest early closure for the VfD. Smerdis of Tlön 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Yanksox 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Walk Away/You've Got A Friend[edit]

A double A side of which neither song was an original. Artist's 4th release (so not notable as a debut) and no other claim to notability that I can see. Didn't enter top 10. I really think we need to have a higher standard than this for notability of songs. Albums are a different matter, of course. kingboyk 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no claims for notability. Andrew Levine 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per proposed Notability (songs), "Appeared in a major motion picture." --Gau 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gau's comments. Notability is established. Wikipedia is not just for top 10 songs. "Appeared in a motion picture" meets notability standards for me. Scorpiondollprincess 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, the song notability guidelines are proposed, and have not yet been completely established. I personally hate many of the guidelines, the "appeared in a major motion picture" clause being one of them. I think that's a horrible guideline. However, if this single went to #16 in the UK, then it's easily notable enough for inclusion in WP. -- Kicking222 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. wikipediatrix 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Levine and WPtrix. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a top twenty single in the UK, by a notable artist. Seems like a no-brainer to me. - fchd 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep commercially released singles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, as the nomination was withdrawn and there were no other opinions but "Keep". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brockett[edit]

delete per WP:MUS and WP:NN Obscure artist with only local following and one album issued in 1971 and only 2,350 Ghits Ohconfucius 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only album sold 100,000 and went gold [19] Catchpole 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot Box[edit]

Local non-notable "hot" cafe. Author removed Speedy Delete yesterday and Prod tag today. Mattisse(talk) 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete tag was removed after article cleaned up according to Wikipedia policy. Speedy Delete tag was incorrectly labelled and improperly applied to article in development state. Article is being updated. Patience is a virtue. TurntableX 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the SPD tag was improper, I'm also of the opinion that the establishment fails to meet Wikipedia's notability considerations (or perhaps more specifically, Wikipedia's No Original Research guideline which is frequently ignored). Weak delete. CPAScott 14:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is a policy not a guideline. Yomangani 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and WP:OR. Yomangani 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was not the person putting the Speedy on, but CSD7 of Speedy would cover this category. Further, admins review all Speedys. You can put "hang-on" to contest it but you are not supposed to remove the Speedy template. Mattisse(talk) 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN business establishment. I don't think we have a guideline for restaurants but certainly fails WP:CORP. May be notable if you're a few meters downwind of the weed. -- Slowmover 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The establishment is notable and the petty bias here is unfortunate. The NOR claim is bogus and unsubstantiated by editors who are clearly unfamiliar with the subject. This is a globally-known peaceful destination for the celebration of cannabis and its culture. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, please do not vandalize this entry any further. HaltonRattlesnake 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, not really. The article on Kensington Market doesn't mention it, and most people in Toronto wouldn't know it. There's a Google cache from the Ryerson student paper here, and the Toronto Star gave it some attention here. I know a coffee shop in Saigon and I live halfway around the world: I guess that makes it globally-known, too. :-)) -- Slowmover 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And a reminder that the nomination itself was based on a misleading and false Wikipedia submission made within seconds of the original creation of this entry. TurntableX 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -- Not true. I didn't know about the Speedy until after my nomination. Further, regardless, you still have to meet WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR. Mattisse(talk) 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Kensington Market per present content. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mattisse(talk). Tychocat 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokencontrollers.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Jacek Kendysz 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to the Damilola Taylor article, consistent with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Preddie. Consensus in this debate was muddy, but I believe this solution is in line with the delete comments as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Preddie[edit]

Oh boy. I'm sort of afraid to tackle this one. I would have tagged the article with "mergeto" Damilola Taylor, but the information already exists in the Taylor article. As such, this page duplicates information already existing in the encyclopedia. Additionally, it is not clear whether the images are copywrited. Suggest delete. CPAScott 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Duplicates the info in the Taylor article without adding to it. Unnecessary. Richardjames444 14:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think too. Appears to be the third time a pair of people has been charged for this crime. Let's wait to see if these become particularly notable (convicted?!) and need their own articles, as opposed to being covered in Damilola Taylor. Encyclopedic notability not known (as opposed to news notability), Wikipedia:Recentism, let's wait if these people have anything encyclopedic in their lives that isn't already covered in a more helpful article. Weregerbil 14:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These two people were charged with a crime, and that crime is the only reason for the page Danny Preddie to exist. That page already contains these two people, and therefore, they don't need their own page. Also, they haven't been convicted yet! --Porqin 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicates info. They have been convicted... but they have achieved nothing more than become semi reknowned for swearing in court and killing a young boy. They are not really worthy of anything more than a passing mention. Kouros 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Danny Preddie article states as of today, they have been charged with the crime, but they have not been convicted. Either way, it doesn't change my opinion on deletion. --Porqin 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like duplicate info, also being common criminials doesn't make them noteworthy. Wildthing61476 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This Damilola kid wasn't even murdered. He fell down and cut himself - just because he is black the police need to charge someone to stop themselves being seen as racist. User:Danieljohnson
This comment is neither helpful nor appropriate. --CPAScott 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, I trust you are all aware that Danny and Ricky Preddie have both been convicted today by a jury of the manslaughter of Damilola Taylor, and probably qualify as two of the UKs most notable juvenile criminals as a result? -Splash - tk 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I still assert we don't need three articles to discuss it. One will suffice. --CPAScott 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest two. Obviously Damilola Taylor, but maybe then Danny and Rickie Preddy (or full names...whatever) to go with it. At the absolute minimum, there should be redirects from both their individual names to somewhere. -Splash - tk 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking now in some newpapers they are calling them the Preddy Brothers. So mabye just a page about Preedy Brothers. tk 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There only really needs to be one article. There would not be much information on the "Preddy Brothers", and all the necessary information would already be in the Damilola Taylor article. -A Shade Of Gray 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to the Damilola Taylor article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Preddie[edit]

see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Preddie CPAScott 14:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE vandalism. -Doc 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Beirne[edit]

Hoax methinks. Deprodded. Weregerbil 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cox (physicist)[edit]

Non-notable scientist. Looks like vanity. User ignored prod tag and has not asserted any claim to fame. Medico80 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. This person makes no ascertation of notability. --Porqin 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing notable about his career; he has a job... and probably would like some exposure to help promote his film and TV work. -- Slowmover 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. - Richardcavell 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The link to a large number of papers published by Brian Cox in respected academic journals, "List of papers by Brian Cox", is sufficient to establish notability. The article would certainly be more useful if it included a discussion of the published research; however, this is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. John254 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publishing papers is what scientists do - it doesn't prove his importance. Like I said, he removed prod tag without doing any effort to assert notability. Medico80 08:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If scientists (and more generally, university faculty) don't publish articles they risk losing their job ("publish or perish"). Articles have to be important in some way to make a scientist notable. -- Slowmover 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the page and I probably didn't do a very good job but I've added a bit more. He was keyboardist for a fairly well-known band D:Ream (who had the song 'things ca only get better') and he presents on bbc radio and television and he's currently in Australia giving public lectures. In my opinion he's notable enough but that's just me. Also, I didn't remove the prod tag I can hardly understand that being a reason for deleting the page.Thesm 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thesm. D:Ream had several hits, including a UK number 1. As a scientist he has appeared on TV and radio, references are in the article. the wub "?!" 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Patino[edit]

I think that this guy has not reached a sufficient degree of notability for being listed in wiki. Come on, he did not even win the contest! Cantalamessa 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being on a reality tv show does not in of itself make you notable. --Porqin 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I went to the page hoping to read more about him. The fact that he came from an impoverished background and was so young and then made it to the finals was notable. User101010 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom WP:NN. Background is irrelevant, and not a criterion for inclusion. Ohconfucius 03:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Butterworth[edit]

Non-notable editor of a local newspaper Keresaspa 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ian¹³/t 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ska Punk And Other Junk[edit]

Makes no claims of notability suitable for WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 693,488. Andrew Levine 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, I Don't Understand?XXXSkaPunk So punknews.org, absolutepunk and other websites get a write up but my site can't? Can you tell me how i can fix it or edit it so it can be published?
  • Delete -- not notable enough to warrant an article. Spylab 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]
  • Delete. They've been online a long time, but failed to achieve real significance, Alexa Rank reflects declining web traffic. No significant ghits either, except linkspam etc. I think with more than half a million more popular websites out there, they fail notability per nom. -- Slowmover 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Site has been around almost a decade -- that's a lifetime by web standards. I'm borderline on this one, but I think this is a WP:GF attempt at a legitimate article. Scorpiondollprincess 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:VAIN and WP:WEB WilyD 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vanity and notability are subjective criteria, so many of these vain/nn articles pass through anyway. This article is trash; on the other hand, it is mostly harmless and there's no pressing need to get rid of it.  Cdcon  16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Slowmover. Zaxem 09:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. ~ trialsanderrors 08:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Tween Waters Inn[edit]

Proposed guideline. I usually stick to guidelines that have achieved consensus. With any luck, the hotel one will have soon. Ryanminier 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("© 2006 The Reconnection, LLC") non-GFDL web page, which was the subject's autobiography. I recommend User:Uncle G/On notability#Tips_for_editors to any editor thinking of writing a fresh article about this (or indeed any other) person. Uncle G 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric pearl[edit]

Makes some rather dubious notability claims. I am going to stay out of the discussion. Andrew Levine 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and massively cleanup. Whether he can heal people magically and make them see angels I cannot say, but the part about having written a published book appears to be true according to Amazon. Needs much cleanup and sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And also happens to be a copy of this page [21]. --Porqin 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Copyvio WilyD 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Only problem I see here is that it is ripped directly from another web page.  Cdcon  16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete not enough notable. ev. move: wrong case! -- Cate 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Dark[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC, page has been subject of revert war over inclusion of notability tag. WP:VAIN - page appears to be autobiographical. BFD1 14:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FRACTALIA[edit]

Is it spam, is it advertising, no it's both! Prod removed bu author at least twice Wildthing61476 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. JD don't talk email me 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Ladybirdintheuk 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is also strikingly similar to this page. --Porqin 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per advertising and possible copyvio, but to nominator, AfD is not really a good place for sarcasm. i kan reed 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know, but occasionally you have to lighten the mood, especially with an article this obvious. Wildthing61476 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's one whacking big copyvio with the text lifted straight from the company web site -- Whpq 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ITspamvertising. NawlinWiki 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be one of the examples of WP:VSCA — MrDolomite | Talk 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Pruneautalk 12:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam --T-rex 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheatingbattle.net[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 228,142. Jacek Kendysz 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was (a non-admin's) keep --james(talk) 08:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackbirds[edit]

Referred from contested CSD. theProject 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The band got some local radio play, but more important are their many reviews for their one album. They must be pretty notable to have gotten so much press.--Kchase T 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A cursory glance at the article shows they meet WP:MUSIC. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a great band, one of Norways finest! I'm very sad by seeing them in this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.10.94 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Apperances on Norway TV stations give notariety and verifiablity. Important also as helps to make wikipedia more international - places outside of the UK and USA have notable people too. LinaMishima 04:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Robert 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowtowns.com[edit]

No evidence of notability, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 393,924. Jacek Kendysz 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Contains very little content, fails WP:WEB, no ascertation of notability. --Porqin 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with colors in the title[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of "[l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics". WP:BEANS and all, but will anyone ever write Bands with colors in the title and what could they say ? An example of the very worst sort of indiscriminate list. My opinion is delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just correcting you, its spelt color per Blue (color) ;). On a more serious note, Delete per nom. Someone pointed this article out to me a while back as an example of why something else should be kept. I thought to myself "what in the heck" but never got around to nominating it. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure it's spelt colour, per Orange (colour). It might be spelled color, however. I stand by both my arguments. ;) WilyD 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing makes a joke less funny than having it explained. WilyD 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misspelled "spelt" too. Calicore 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I imagine few if any of these bands and people have colours in their names; they'd have names of colours in their names. Unless they use symbols like the Artist formerly known as Prince. And a "List of bands and singers with names of colours in their names" strikes me as indiscriminate. Some of these are unrelated to the colour- if a band called itself Evergreen Terrace, I'd suspect it will be because of the Simpsons and not because they like the colour green. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. --kingboyk 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I love the article, I have to give it to the nominator. Calicore 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate listcruft not in support of any encyclopedic article. Agent 86 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I think that lists can have value, this is just too arbitrary and crufty of a list.-- danntm T C 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel it has character. I liked reading and adding to it. Kendroberts 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unencyclopedic. Quirky but interesting things have a place, but Wikipedia is not that place for this one. Piccadilly 22:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Chey's[edit]

Fails WP:CORP as a non-notable company. Cassavau 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note {prod} tag was removed without comment, moved to AfD. --Cassavau 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Kchase T 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete company is notable --Endogenous 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would provide some backing for this statement, it would help inform the discussion. --Cassavau 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. Google shows a lot of hits, but they're either press releases or restaurant listings. Tychocat 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemoney[edit]

Podcasts, SEO, webmaster. Nothing in there which speaks to WP:BIO. 166 unique Googles for "Jeremy Schoemaker", lots for shoemoney as you'd expect given he's an SEO merchant. Reliable secondary sources for biographical data look to be thin on the ground. Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete In retrospect, Tychocat is correct. I withdraw my objection to deletion.Quasifrodo 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO, per my regularly-stated inability to find multiple third-party non-trivial articles about the subject. Also, article appears to fail WP:V regarding statements of being "noted" and "gaining popularity". I realize these noms are supposed to be a discussion, but I'd wish you folks would flat-out state your desired action here. Also, Quasifrodo appears at the bottom of the article in an apparent signature? What's up with that? Tychocat 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Mac Users Group[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable club. Author defends notability in talk with "50-75 members" (not particularly notable I think), "meets at a prestigous school" (not everything that happens there is by default notable I think), and "listed at Apple's website" (you can get your club listed by emailing it in I think). Weregerbil 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7. Also, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Ryanminier 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, unless there's some storied history I'm missing (as, arguably, with the Berkeley Macintosh Users Group). --Calton | Talk 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • as it stands, it seems like a "strong delete" on grounds of chains and franchises not deserving a seperate entry. However, I seem to recall that it was initially quite significant in its heyday - one of the first, if not the first User group/MUG in the world, but cannot substantiate. Who in those days had a user group? delete Ohconfucius 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ian¹³/t 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XG Technology[edit]

Article has been tagged as an advert (agreed by author) for four weeks. During that time there has been no clean up Nuttah68 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google results have articles about the company from O'Reilly, NetworkWorld, Engadget, and ZDNet amongst others. It looks like they might be notable, article should keep the advert tag until it is reformatted to read less like an ad. Ryanminier 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This company may become encyclopedicly notable one day, but it isn't yet. Zaxem 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still an ad. ~ trialsanderrors 08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web at Ease[edit]

tagged as an advert for four weeks with no new edits Nuttah68 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Ryanminier 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Web at Ease, LLC in quotations gets 91 Ghits - far too few for a web-based company, don't you think? "Web at Ease" brought up other businesses, so the LLC became necessary. The article reads like an advertisement on top of everything else. Srose (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld Singles Box Set[edit]

It's a box with some singles in it. How can this be notable? kingboyk 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. --kingboyk 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As notable as the individual singles themselves (which have articles) and presents information of additional bonus material. Likely a collector's item. BFD1 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Release by a major artist. Hardly the only box-set article we have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How can this be notable? It's a box set release by one of the most important techno music/electronica bands of the time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me clarify: It's a box. With the singles in it. Singles which are already well documented seperately. I think I've misused the word "notable" (I *love* Underworld and was an early owner of Dubnobass..., I know they're notable). Anyway, that said, I withdraw the nomination should someone else wish to close. --kingboyk 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Doc 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of box set albums[edit]

Listcruft, is my simple contention. kingboyk 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with kingboyk; an indiscriminate list with no meaningful content. -- Slowmover 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete the list. This kind of thing is what categories are good for, but as a list it certainly falls under WP:NOT. -- H·G (words/works) 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the category already exists, so this would just be a matter of making sure every entry on this list gets on that category. -- H·G (words/works) 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 09:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Farsism[edit]

Pan-Farsism does not exist. It is only an accusation people make against Persians, it has no factual support. Typing in Pan Farsism does not bring anything into Google instead of accusations by foreigners. Also, the article does not site its sources, nor is it factual, its POV. Khosrow II 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - for the reasons listed above.Khosrow II 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Khosrow II. Badbilltucker 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mildly racist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very racist and also such a term is never used. There has never been a party calling itself pan-Farsism. So this is an article without academic reference and should be deleted. --Ali doostzadeh 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a pejorative racist term, used to attack Persians. --Mardavich 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Meaningless term used to promote pan-turkist agenda. Arash the Bowman 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ali. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Harris[edit]

Non-notable basketball player. Fails WP:BIO. Need comments for further action. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted.--SB | T 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kohs[edit]

Page makes no meaningful assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO.-- Slowmover 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Joe 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As an aside, this is a little troubling: He created MyWikiBiz in 2006, which creates articles about companies for Wikipedia, for a fee. BFD1 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. As another aside, I am Gregory Kohs, and I have no interest in this article being maintained. Speedy delete is preferable to me. -- Thekohser 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rebecca 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --mav 11:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per Original research and possible copyvio issues. This was a great discussion to read. Yanksox 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scytho-Iranian theory[edit]

This article should be deleted for several reasons: 1) It is entirely POV 2) It is origional research, which goes against Wikipedia's policy of NOR 3) It was origionally written for a Pan Turk website which also claims Etruscans, Sumerians, and Greeks along with Scythians as being Turkic 4) The User who created this article says that he wrote the article origionally for that Pan Turkish website, which puts into question his motives, and possibly even makes him a Pan Turk. The site can be viewed here: [22] Khosrow II 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - For the reasons listed above.Khosrow II 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The citations and references contained here are not OR as long as they are properly cited to known works, and should not be suppressed, as they represent an entire school of thought that has been around through the eras beginning with classical sources, but now a concerted attempt is being made by an organized partisan group within wikipedia to keep all of this testimony out of public access. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the current, much better title given by Dab, Ethnic classification of the Scythians, this article (or one like it) could be vastly expanded and made useful. Sections on all the vast classical references to Scythians out there could be included in one encompassing article - not just the "Iranian" and "Turkic" / "Altaic" classification sections, but all of the others out there over the years. I have already collected a partial sample of possible leads on my user page; as noted, the classical, historical references and traditions literally stretch all the way from Ireland to Cambodia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like substantially a copyvio from here. It's not exact, but certainly not written for WP. But note that Khosrow II has been edit-warring on this article for some time with Barefact. -- Slowmover 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice the 4 reasons I gave. First other users a well as I tried to discuss the issue and come to a conclusion, that didn't work and based on the 4 reasons I gave above, I believe this article should be deleted.Khosrow II 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Strong Delete Major POV issue which violages NOR. The article makes it seem it is western conspiracy to consider Scythians as Iranians and it is all based on ethno-nationalistic polemics. On the other hand the Iranianness of Scythians has been uniformly and unanimously accepted with the exception of nationalist Turkicist psuedo-scholars, like the writer of this article for at least the last 50 years and over the prior 100 years, many authorities have accepted it as well. In his site, the author of this article considers Sumerian, Elamite, Soghdians... and thousands of other non-Turkic groups as Turkic. The validity of the quotes also are selective and the author has already damaged the ossetian article by claiming it is a non-Iranian language, flatly denying scholarship. He was also caught misquoting a genetic study. So this article should be deleted as it constitutes NOR and has no backing from Academia. For example one out of the many wrong claims: 1) Ossetian is an agglutinating type language with phonetics, morphology, lexicon, semantics and syntax of the Kartvelian-Adygian languages (Abaev, V.I. "Ossetian..."). . That is totally wrong and this was proven in the Ossetic language page that this user just makes up stuff. See for example the section of the book here from a very distinguished Hungarian Iranologist (do a google search on his name if you do not believe me): [23]. Note this author of the article claims Ossetian is not an Iranian language! This is totally false and this should make this article invalid within itself. Scythians are unanimously considered Iranian[24] (Cambridge History of Iran, Volume II). Note the polemics of pan-turkist circles in claiming Sumerian, Elamite, Urartian, Soghdian, Hittite, Hurrian and thousands of other languages as Turkic has a long history in the republic of Turkey, but such theories are not mainstream and the authors article comes from here: [25]. . That is why this article should be deleted. So it is clear this is a non-academic article. There is not a single well known scholar in the field of Scythian studies who has published numerous articles (in peer reviewed journals) who has denied the Iranian heritage of Scythians. Here are some other wrong claims in the article: Not Az-eri, whose endoethnonym is Azeri, and not Balkars, one of whose endoethnonyms is As. Actually Azari is Adhari and Adhari comes Adharibaijan Middle Persian AtoorPatekaan (which is used in this way in Armenian as well). Azarbaijan due to its numerous firetemples was called Azarbaijan (gaurdian of the fire) and not the term "Azari" has nothing to do with the word "As". Wikipedia is a not place for polemics. An author who does not know the etymology of Adhari somehow wants to link this term to "As". There are much more wrong claims. The author of this unreliable wikipedia entery ignores Abaev who himself clearly states Ossetian and Alans are Iranians: [26]. Yet the author has the audacity to misquote Abaev when Abaevs opinion is clear from the article above. Abaev says the name "Alan" is a cognate with Iran and Aryan. Abaev says that Alanian may be reconstructed from Ossetian (after excluding the borrowed words of Ossetian from Caucasian and Turkic languages)(pg 803, above source). Its all there in the above entery written by Abaev himself! The Iranian evidence for Scythians is overwhelming and Britannica 2006 has no doubt it either nor do all these references: [27]. For example the following book which is 500 pages: Zgusta, L.: Die griechischen Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. Die ethnischen Verhältnisse, namentlich das Verhältnis der Skythen und Sarmaten, im Lichte der Namenforschung, Prague 1955 , has done a detailed etymology on each of the Scythian words. Here is more information on this author: [28]. Or see Peter Golden's book on the Turkic people. Here is another example of faulty etymology from the writer of this article: The same straightforward etymology was offered for the ethnonyms named by the classical sources: Ashkuza/Ishkuza is As-guzes, a transparent ethnonym for As tribes, where "guz" is Türkic "tribe. Actually the Assyrian Ashkuza has nothing to do with Az-guzes! And also there is no tribe name guz but actually is Ghuz. There has never been a tribe called As-Oghuz or As-Ghuz. Just by the above example, we can see the writer of this article does not know his etymology. Wikipedia is a not place for polemical opinions. Serious academics who have written numerous peer-reviewed journals should not be ignored for the sake of the creatre of the following website: [29]! (Just take a look at the website of the user who wrote this article and pretty soon every ancient people in history will become Turks because unacademic and falsified information is allowed to creep into Wikipedia). Now compare this to the academic work written by professor Oswald Szemerényi available here:[30]. Indeed the book here: [Four old Iranian names Scythian-Skuda-Sogdian-Saka http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/fouroldiranianethnicnames.pdf] shows the difference between real scholarsip and psuedo-scholarship based on psuedo-linguistics. The author forgets that the names of Scythians have easily recognized Iranian etymology. Saka Haumavarga - The Saka bearinng the Hauma - Hauma is the sacred drink of the Zoroastrians and ancient Areyan Hindus of India. Saka TigraKhauda - The Saka with the pointed hats. "Khauda" for example is middle Persian (Pahlavi) "Khaud" and present day "Khood" or "Kolah-Khood" in modern Farsi (Helmet). Saka Paradraya - The Saka from beyond the sea. Para is Indo-European (and it's subset Iranian) for "beyond" (there in no such root in Turkish or indeed any Altaic languages that I know of). Certain dialects in Khorassan still seem to use the word "para" in that context. "Draya" is sea (Persian "Darya" - which is also a word loaned into modern Turkish as "Derya"). Either the author of the entery scytho-Iranian theory(actually it is not a theory and it is not a Western conspiracy) should be a major Professor with major cited publications from a major Western University (which he is not) or else his politically motivated article should be completely removed because it violates Wikipedia's NOR and all of its facts are really psuedo-scholarship non-academic theories. Also Wikipedia should not be a democracy and should reflect academic opinions of the relavent scholars in the field and not ethno-nationalists. Almost every single line of this entery article is without a reference. Here is another false quote: Instead, the Indo-Iranian tribes are documented as agricultural, sedentary, grain-consuming, never mastering long-distance horse husbandry, which is again false, for example the Mittani whom we have the oldest Indo-Iranian manuscripts were excellent horse trainers for fighting wars. (see the wikipedia article on Mittani or Encyclopedia Britannica).

Some more academic references:

Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A
Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Proto-Language and
Proto-Culture (Parts I and II). Tbilisi State University.
Mallory, J.P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language Archeology
and Myth. Thames and Hudson. Read Chapter 2 and see 51-53 for a quick
reference.
Newark, T. (1985). The Barbarians: Warriors and wars of the Dark Ages.
Blandford: New York. See pages 65, 85, 87, 119-139.
Renfrew, C. (1988). Aecheology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European
origins. Cambridge University Press.


Note I wanted to mention that the user Codex Sinaiticus did some research and found a quote which also contradicts this nationalistic psuedo-scholarship POV of article. Indeed the article claimed Zosimus considered the Huns(who might have been party altaic) to be Scythians. But the user Codex Sinaiticus found the actual quote which writes: While these affairs were so conducted, a barbarous nation, which till then had remained unknown, suddenly made its appearance, attacking the Scythians beyond the Ister. These were the Huns. It is doubtful whether they were Scythians, who lived under regal government, or the people whom Herodotus states to reside near the Ister, and describes as a weak people with flat noses, or whether they came into Europe from Asia.. [31]. Note this actually works against the author of this article who came up with the conspiracy theory!


Finally there is the admittance of the writer of the entery himself from his own webpage: The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion. [32] and due to discredit all these scholars, the author comes up with the falsified polemics! As you can see the authors work here is to challenge the universal acceptance of a fact. He needs to do this in Academic journals which are seriously peer reviewed and not in Wikipeda and once Britannica 2006 and thousands of other books and journal articles are changed, then his theory can be accepted. So this is clearly OR , POV, ..and violates WIKIPEDIA's NOR policy.

--Ali doostzadeh 02:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be mentioned in no article anywhere, the quotes that Zosimus (ca. AD 500) and Theophanes the Confessor (ca. 800) identified Huns with Scythians, Menander Protector (ca. AD 600) identified Turks with Sakas, Procopius (ca. 550) identified Cimmerians with Utigurs, etc.? It is a fact that these are quoted opinions held in antiquity, not OR - but such facts as these have already proven unwelcome at the relevant pages like Scythians, where they have been systematically stripped and kept out, thanks to the coordinated efforts of the so-called "Iranian Watchdog" of Wikipedia. (See Iranian Wikipedians' notice board). The "Watchdogs'" board is permissible - but one must wonder how far it can go when they band together for purposes of deliberately keeping such information as these quotes from Zosimus, Procopius, et. al. from being seen anywhere, through sheer strength of numbers. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown enough weak links in the current article. But here is more. What you wrote is wrong because you do not provide the sources. Huns themselves were a mixed group:[33], so even if your quote is right (where are the standard English edition references to Procopius for example), it does not make Scythians->Huns->Turks. Or who says Cimmerians were related to Utigurs and of course by word playing you are going to some how assign Utigurs to Uyghurs. Give me a break. Show me a single Western Academician with in the last 20 years that has written peer-reviewed journal article that supports such a claim. I would read some serious books on Scythians. As per Iranian noticeboard, I would not support any proposal that does not have academic backing. Here we have "Universal" academic backing on a subject matter. Cimmerians by the way were not Turks either (Britannica). The current article is about conspiracy theory in claiming that western scholars falsified the scytho-Iranian theory. As Richard Frye the eminent Harvard Professor puts it: In the fifth century a forrnidable new enemy appeared in the north-east as successor to the Kushans, a new wave of invaders from Central Asia called the Hephthalites. They are connected with the new order on the steppes of Central Asia which can be characterised best as the rise of the Altaic-speaking peoples or the Hunnic movement. Just as the first millennium BC in Central Asia was considered by classical authors as the period of Scythian dominance in the steppes, so the first half of the first millennium AD is the time of the Huns, while the second half and later is the period of the Turks and the Mongols. Of course the term 'Scythian' continued to be used by classical authors for various steppe peoples well into the Christian era just as the Ottomans were designated 'Huns' by several Byzantine authors. None the less the various terms 'Scythian, Hun and Turk' were general designations of the steppe peoples in Western sources including the Near East, though the Chinese had other names. Obviously not all peoples who lived in, or came from Central Asia into the Near East or eastern Europe in the first half of the first millennium AD were Huns, and the fact that Western and Near Eastern sources call a tribe Hunnic really only means that they came from the steppes of Central Asia, a vast area. The word 'Hun' has caused scholars great trouble as have other problems of Hunnic history, but this is not the place to discuss such questions as, for example, the iclentity of the Hsiung-nu of Chinese sources with various 'Huns' of Western, Near Eastern or Indian sources. [34] In many Persian manuscipts the Ottoman empire is designated by "Rome" so are you going to try to prove that the Romans were Ottomans? Here is a serious book by Professor Frye who is an expert authority which also shows that Scythians were Iranians[35] and furthermore takes up the history of central asia till the Turkic expansion. --Ali doostzadeh 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are all verifiable quotes from Early Middle Ages Sources, if they can be verified I think they deserve to be in some article somewhere to demonstrate what earlier traditions regarding these peoples were. It's not Original research. What article would you propose is appropriate to mention this antique, even if incorrect, view that they were connected? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Verifiable? So far I have shown a good amount of false sources in this article. Secondly the former confusion about Scythians has been put succintly by Professor Richard Frye of Harvard University and I quote again: In the fifth century a forrnidable new enemy appeared in the north-east as successor to the Kushans, a new wave of invaders from Central Asia called the Hephthalites. They are connected with the new order on the steppes of Central Asia which can be characterised best as the rise of the Altaic-speaking peoples or the Hunnic movement. Just as the first millennium BC in Central Asia was considered by classical authors as the period of Scythian dominance in the steppes, so the first half of the first millennium AD is the time of the Huns, while the second half and later is the period of the Turks and the Mongols. Of course the term 'Scythian' continued to be used by classical authors for various steppe peoples well into the Christian era just as the Ottomans were designated 'Huns' by several Byzantine authors. None the less the various terms 'Scythian, Hun and Turk' were general designations of the steppe peoples in Western sources including the Near East, though the Chinese had other names. Obviously not all peoples who lived in, or came from Central Asia into the Near East or eastern Europe in the first half of the first millennium AD were Huns, and the fact that Western and Near Eastern sources call a tribe Hunnic really only means that they came from the steppes of Central Asia, a vast area. The word 'Hun' has caused scholars great trouble as have other problems of Hunnic history, but this is not the place to discuss such questions as, for example, the iclentity of the Hsiung-nu of Chinese sources with various 'Huns' of Western, Near Eastern or Indian sources. [36]. This is a scholarly source. In many Persian manuscipts the Ottoman empire is designated by "Rome" so are you going to try to prove that the Romans were Ottomans? All foreigners in persian and middle eastern languages (British, French, Spanish, Italians..) were called "Farang" (from Frankish German tribe). What you are trying to argue about is a totally different issue. The fact of the matter is that there is a universal acceptance that Scythians are Iranians. But we can mention in the Scythian article (and not this conspiracy theory article) what Professor. Frye has referred to. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Else one can work backward and say since Huns (a mixed group btw) were called Scythians, then Huns are Iranians and make up theories. The issue at hand is an article POV here challenging the current universal scholarly opinion (admitted by the author of the article) on the Iranian background of Scythians. The article has many false quotes and etymologies and I just showed a few. So there is two different issues here and there is no reason to convolute them. I have no quarrels with ancient designations and we can bring the quote by Professor. Frye to show that various different groups and even the Ottoman empire was called Scythian at one time just like middle easterners called all europeans as Franks. But that has nothing to do with the original Scythians and other weired theories of the author above who claims Ossetian is not an Iranian language although Abaev has clearly stated it is. --Ali doostzadeh 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "if they can be verified" (the quotes from Procopius, and all the others) then they are admissible to Wikipedia, in some form or another. All one would have to do is verify them first, which hopefully it wouldn't be too hard to prove if they are correct quotes or not. ፈቃደ ([[User

talk:Codex Sinaiticus|ውይይት]]) 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What you say here is not related to the current argument here . Also note how ancient authors even differentiated between Huns and Alans(scythians). [37] and I quote again here for sake of clarity: Important, however, is the fact that Ptolemy and Ammianus both located the Huns in the neighborhood of the Iranian-Sarmatian Alans, and that the land of the Alans between the Sea of Azov and the Caucasus was still considered by Byzantine historiography as the country of origin of the Huns (Priscus, frag. 1; Procopius, Bella 4.5; Agathias, 5.11). The Alans are known to have been the first victims of the sudden expansion of the Huns between 370 and 375 C.E., and to have been forced by the latter to participate in subsequent military expeditions (Amm. Marc., 31.3.1). . And note my quotes are verified from a verifiable source and note picking and choosing is not keeping a unbiased POV. We can have a section on the main Scythian page about former affiliations of Scythians and mention Altaic, Slavic, Uralic and Germanic. But the current argument is about how there is a big conspiracy theory and how according to the author of the article: the universal acceptance of current scholarship is false and is a conspiracy. So that is the issue at hand. --Ali doostzadeh 04:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I wanted to mention that the user Codex Sinaiticus did some research and found a quote which also contradicts this nationalistic psuedo-scholarship POV of article. Indeed the article claimed Zosimus considered the Huns(who might have been party altaic) to be Scythians. But the user Codex Sinaiticus found the actual quote which writes: While these affairs were so conducted, a barbarous nation, which till then had remained unknown, suddenly made its appearance, attacking the Scythians beyond the Ister. These were the Huns. It is doubtful whether they were Scythians, who lived under regal government, or the people whom Herodotus states to reside near the Ister, and describes as a weak people with flat noses, or whether they came into Europe from Asia.. [38]. Note this actually works against the author of this article who came up with the conspiracy theory! --Ali doostzadeh 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Serious problems such as copy right violation and original research. --Mardavich 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the claim of original research seems farfetched when there are several books listed which, allegedly at least, support the theory, and there apparently is a website that also supports the theory. One should not delete articles based on the political association of the user who creates them. No one should be caring if the creator of this article is a Pan-Turk, Republitarian 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a single Western Academician with in the last 20 years that has written peer-reviewed journal article that supports sucha weired claim. Note pretty soon with such an author we will slowly see all of his page: [39] in one form or another in Wikipedia and pretty soon kids will be mislead in thinking Greek, Sumerian, Elamite,French[40].. are all Turkish as well. I am suprised that Wikipedia has stooped so low. --Ali doostzadeh 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP hasn't stooped, you are just witnessing the slow churning of the wiki machine, turning insane kookery into encyclopedicity (per aspera ad articulum). Give it some time, it will turn out alright. Inputs of blooming nonsense such as this is a powerful driving force of Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I hope you are right. But if there wasn't observant users scrutinizing some of these articles, who knows what would happen or what is happening. Not to speak of myself, but for at least 6 months, some user who was in copy right violation had disfigured the Medes article and claimed that the Hungarian Magyars are related to Magians and had claimed Sumerian,Dravidian,Elamite .. are all Hungarian. Note such an embarrasing error in Wikipedia for 6 months without anyone noticing it was very unfortunate. More unfortunate though was the insistence of someone that the false information (which was also in copy right violation) should not be removed! I can tell you that in some pan-Turkist countries, they have written books with bogus materials in order to claim Sumerians, Medes, Elamites, Hurrians, Scythians, Urartuians, Hittites,Greeks. For example in one book, Homer is called Omer and Hellen of Troy is related to Turks since Toroy and Tork sound close. Or please take a look here: [41]. The material on this article is bogus like those books/article, but very few people actually might check the sources. That is why it becomes very important to actually have academic backed articles in some of the enteries(and these are mainly historical articles since with political articles everyone can pretty much have an opinion) so that nationalistic POV does not creep in. I can tell anything which the creator of this wikipedia article will write, will have a non-neutral POV. Is it then my job to track every single sentence down? I hope not since that is very time consuming. In the Ossetic language page, he is denying that Ossetic is classified as an Iranian language! (See the talk page). And unfortunately another user instead of siding with the truth puts a dispute tag, while there is absolutely no dispute that Ossetic is classified linguistically as an Iranian language. It is like me going to the entery of George Washington and claiming that he was Chinese and if someone doesn't like it, then I will put a dispute tag! Take care. --Ali doostzadeh 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Ali doostzadeh... there really isn't much more to say than that. Possible copyvio on top of all of that. Srose (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Sorry guys, but I'd really prefer not to take sides this time. —Khoikhoi 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect/merge with Scythia, or at the very least rename: the current title is consciously misleading, with nationalistic motivation, by presenting a 99% scholarly consensus as a far-fetched "theory". In the same spirit we could pretty much move any article on Wikipedia (WoW-style) to take a " theory" suffix. dab (ᛏ) 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this original research. Wikipedia doesn't need ultra-nationalist fabrications. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - The material for this article is from a very biased and unserious pan-turkist site.

Ofcourse the first thing you encounter here (http://www.turkicworld.org/) is the "grey wolf" background, which is an obvious reference to the pan-turkist ideology of the site.

Here are a few examples of what else you can see on this page:

Famous TURKS in history:

Biruni (perian scientist) Changiz khan (mongol general) Farabi (persian scientist) Abu muslim Khorasani (Persian General) Khwarizmi (Persian mathematician) Avicinna or Ibne Sina (Persian physician) Qublai Khan (Mongol Ruler)

(http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0004/0004.htm)

Nowrooz is an ancient turkish holiday! (http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0001/0001_19_03.htm)

Here is an other jewel of knowledge (I quote):

"In the Iranian Zend-Avesta narrations which can be found in detail in the Islamic sources and in the Israely origin Torah narratives the name "Turk" was searched at Noah's grandson (son of Yafes) Turk..."

(Ofcourse the author needs to explain where in Avesta is there any talk about the semitic myths of Noah etc...)

Articles like this are and have been part of a concerted effort by pan-turkist ideologists to romantisize the origin of turks, through association of ancient heroic or civilized people with turks. Note that in the article in question, the english word "Turk" is consistently spelled "Türk" as per spelling in Turkish, which suggest a very national-romantic approach to history. Nothing from this site has a place in a serious encyclopedia and therefore we really should remove this nonsense from Wikipedia. Arash the Bowman 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't a debate about the website, but about the article. Unlike the website, we can fix the article. I have started the process, and I see no reason to delete it rather than cleaning it up. dab (ᛏ) 10:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to start this anew. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article exists is to promote the ideas of the aforementioned websit. (the author of the wikipedia article is a contributor to that website). The article about Scythians should be enough. Therefore there is no reason to fix this article. Fixing it will require a major rewriting any way, which I do not think is necessary, since any useful information can be put into the Scythia article. best wishes Arash the Bowman 10:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Thanks to all that contributed specially user Dab. I definitely welcome the name change although I recommend former ethnic classification of Scythians instead of ethnic classification of Scythians. Personally I do not think any aspect of this article can be salvaged although historical identification of Scythians with Germans, Turks, Slavs, Uralic people could be mentioned succintly in the Scythian article (with appropriate sources). I believe there was a Russian book two hundreds years ago by the title "Yes we are Scythians". Anyways found another error and faslification in the current article. Procopius in no way identifies the Huns as Scythians. [42]. He just mentions various steppes people. Please read the third paragraph. I am wondering how many errors do we have to find before some other users stop the distortion and disfigurement of Wikipedia for their nationalistic POV. --Ali doostzadeh 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Yes, we are Scythians! Yes, we are Asians!' is actually a famous line from one of the last poems by Alexander Blok --Ghirla -трёп- 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ali... As you can see I am a stickler for getting to the bottom of things and finding the true story, whatever it is...! As for the Procopius claim, note that the claim here is actually that he identified the "Utigurs" with the "Cimmerians", which seems more probable that he said this. All he seems to say about "Scythians" and "Huns", is that Attila's army had absorbed and incorporated a large Scythian fighting force into his own ranks, which is basically what the other historians agree. (E.g. [43] - "Attila, who had invaded the Roman domain with a great army of Massagetae and the other Scythians...") You are right in that a distinction between the Huns and Scythians nations seems to be maintained, or as in Zosimus, left open. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is good. I am also at getting to bottom of the truth. That is why each statement in the original article which is non-factual needs to be removed. Zosmus actually distinguishes more than leaving it open. I still favor a strong delete and believe that historical identification of Scythians with other groups(Slavs, Germans,Turks..) needs to be put in a small succint section. All nonsense stuff in this article about conspiracy theories needs to be thrown out. So basically we need a small section in the main scythian article to just summarize this issue, and of course the universal opinion which is the final opinion in my view (since all sources have now been exhausted), is that Scythians were Iranic Indo-European people. --Ali doostzadeh 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two pennies
I enjoy the ongoing debate.
The fact that the debate takes place already shows that there is a need to address the subject, its history, its concepts, its pros and cons. The abcence of such subject in the Wikipedia was glaring, which drew me to full in the void in the first place. The notion that all seven Scythian languages were Iranian/Ossetian/Northern Iranian/Eastern Iranian is laughable and unsustainable other than by policing means. These means were employed by former USSR and its Easterm European sattelites. As soon as the enforcement apparatus faded, facts and opinions started to flourish, and need to be sorted out, which is not the Wikipedia task, and may take half a century or more. But for Wikipedia to pretend that the subject does not exist is ridiculous, totally contrary to its objectives, and again, usustainable. The German version quotes Tanshu stating that Alans were one of four Hun's tribes, and a leading one. The English version, policed by enthusiastic watchdogs, does not have it. So, they have to stretch their policing effort into German, Finnish etc. versions, or to nuke the Tabshu itself to suppress the flow of ideas. And it is unsustainable, because no one can suppress the Tanshu.
Adding information about competing views does not endorse these views, but only reflects a fact of the life that exists whether Wikipedia reflects it or not.
And while we are discussing this subject, we should think about other information we want to suppress. Shall we suppress the genetical data on Scythians? Shall we suppress the observation of Cavalli-Sforza? Shall we supress the studies of Karvellian and Nakh languages that view Ossetian as a dialect of their languages? Where are we to stop at suppressing? Is the partizan watchdog agency a proper tool to define the limits of suppression?
Regards, Barefact 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually Wikipedia is not a debate place and it is up to the actual scholarly community and not nationalist groups to discuss history and they have done so over the past 200 years and it is firmly established that Scythians are Iranians. Your competing view falls in the realm of original research and so it is not for Wikipedia. I already showed numerous examples of you using false etymology. As per all seven Scythian dialect being Iranian, you might want to check Kurdish which has 50 dialects/variants. The rest of the political stuff about USSR is irrelavent since Western scholarship as independently reached the same convincing conclusions and as I said there is no conspiracy theory. Also you have totally picked and choosed statements from Abaev (assuming your quotes where valid) to reach a conclusion he did not reach. I will quote Abaev here: Ossetic is the spoken and literary language of the Ossetes, a people living in the central part of the Caucasus and constituting the basic population of the North-Ossetic ASSR, which belongs to the Russian Federation, and of the South-Ossetic Autonomous Oblast [Region] which belongs to the Georgian Republic. Ossetic is genetically related to the Iranian group of the Indo-European family of languages. From deep antiquity (since the 7th-8th centuries B. C), the languages of the Iranian group were distributed in a vast territory including present-day Iran (Persia), Central Asia, and Southern Russia. Ossetic is the sole survivor of the northeastern branch of Iranian languages known as Scythian. The Scythian group included numerous tribes in Central Asia and Southern Russia, known in ancient sources as Scythians, Massageti, Sakas, Sarmatians, Alans, Roksolans, etc. In close relationship with these tribes were the Khorezmians and the Sogdians. At the beginning of our era, one of the Scytho-Sarmatian tribes, the Alans, advanced to the Northern Caucasian Mountains and mixed with the local Caucasian elements, thus giving rise to the Ossetic nationality. In the course of centuries-long propinquity to and intercourse with Caucasian languages, Ossetic became similar to them in some features, particularly in phonetics and lexicon. However, it retained its grammatical structure and basic lexical stock; its relationship with the Iranian family, despite considerable individual traits, does not arouse any doubt. Among the languages of the Soviet Union belonging to the Iranian family are also Tajik, Kurdish, Tat, Talysh, Yagnobi, and Shugni. Among those beyond the border are Persian, Pashto, Balochi, and others. Ossetic is divided into two main dialects: the eastern, called Iron, and the Western, called Digor. The overwhelming majority of Ossetes speak the Iron dialect, and the literary language is based on it. The creator of the Ossetic literary language is the national poet Kosta Xetagurov (1859-1906)[44]. As Per Alans, The Alans are known to have been the first victims of the sudden expansion of the Huns between 370 and 375 C.E., and to have been forced by the latter to participate in subsequent military expeditions (Amm. Marc., 31.3.1)[45]. As per phenotype, original Turks were mongloid (like Yakuts today) and Scythians are clearly Caucasoid. --Ali doostzadeh 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Huh? That's to say, I stared at this article for several minutes and could not make up my mind as to whether this is a genuine attempt at documenting a scientific controversy or a bowl of copyvio-WP:OR-ethnic-chest-thumping-word salad. And the surreal content debate here on AfD doesn't help. I don't even understand what the article is about, except possibly whose national ancestors the Scythians are, which appears to be a terribly weighty question. I'm not voting yet. Let's see whether I can at least understand what the article means to say after the ongoing rewrite. Sandstein 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - everything has already been said. This article is POV. Tājik 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - As per all the reasons above. No need to explain. --(Aytakin) | Talk 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Sandstein abakharev 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Sandstein hasn't voted "Delete"...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete no sourced criterion for notability established; even the scraps that were obtained in terms of sources do not substantiate WP:NMG inclusion. -- Samir धर्म 12:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volumatix[edit]

Non-notable band. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. For some odd reason, Yanksox is fighting me on {{db-band}} and not really providing reasons. Either way, read the article and see how unimportant it is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Yes, Yanksox should provide you reasons, and does so in the edit summary. It's a question over procedure (speedy deletion vs. proposed deletion). As far as notability, it's clear in the article why this band is notable. All we need is more sources. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And how are they notable? They don't pass WP:Music, do they? Is there something I'm missing here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you are missing something here. They were a prominent represenative of a notable musical genre in their city. They toured the United States. Those are two criteria of WP:MUSIC. Now, while the article is lacking sources, I assume the editor will now provide them for us. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Prominent? You're only saying they're prominent because the article says so. The article could say they invented punk in 1981. The article could say anything. They played a kind of music that several thousand bands had been playing for years by the time they were formed and they apparently played in Houston and Los Angeles. Any band from Milwaukee can play a show in Chicago sooner or later, but that does not make them notable. There is no outstanding reason to have an (unsourced) article on them, especially one using weasel words like "highly sought after" and "prominent." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • An article must assert the notability of its subject. That's what the editor did when writing the article. Now, sources must be provided, and I assume they will be. The time you spent marking this article up with improper tags and creating an AfD could have been used to contact the original author of the article and let him/her know it needed sources. Is "prominent" a weasel word? Because I got it from one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Your inability to stay cool makes me wonder if there is another agenda here that might render this a bad faith nomination. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence of a bad faith nomination. Whilst it may be ineliquently phrased, one can hardly fault him or her in context. Best yet, let the article's AfD get decided on it's own merits, irrespective of the nominator's intent. WilyD 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'll ignore the WP:MUSIC criteria because it's possible they pass (there are some vague statements that get them past - while I see no evidence of prominence, there is a reference to some kind of tour - instead, I'll focus on WP:V, notably, I can't find any reputable sources about the band whatsoever. WilyD 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What to do? Obviously, their work was pre-internet. A google search of the name turns up a lot of auctions for their records. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can always look for books in your local library, or search through their microfiche. It may be the case that articles that are otherwise viable are excluded by WP:V because they just scratched notability long ago - but this is the price we must pay to have an encyclopaedia, rather than a steaming heap of spam. WilyD 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question/Comment - Can anyone make sense of the following? The University of Texas site has some info on Volumatix, but I can't quite figure out what it is or how to cite it. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are the archives of the Soap Creek Saloon, a venue in Austin. Business records, photos, posters, that sort of thing. It appears that Volumatix is one of the bands who appeared at that venue. The page is a listing of the contents of the archive and how it is organized, and what subjects are contained in each box, though there is no way of knowing what specific material or how much they have under each subject. My guess is that judging from the number of different bands listed for each box, the amount of individual material on each band is fairly small, perhaps just a poster or some business paperwork. Gamaliel 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No allmusic.com entry. 73 google hits. Gamaliel 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allmusic entry may be a source of notability, but lack of Allmusic entry is NOT a reason for deletion. Did you look at those 73 ghits? What did they say? Anything about the hits indicate notability or non-notability? PT (s-s-s-s) 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a reason to delete if there is no evidence of notability provided. The google hits were record sales stores, myspace, message boards, etc. Nothing to indictate notability. Gamaliel 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, those hits were playlists on radio stations, sites for venues the band played, and record auctions where their work is fetching high prices. Does THAT speak to you? PT (s-s-s-s) 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm a graduate student and even I don't consider $10-$15 a high price for a record. Which is what all the eBay ones are selling for WilyD 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really, sorry. See WP:RS. We can't write encyclopedia articles based on playlists and record auctions. Who is this band? Why are they important? Who did they influence? These questions aren't answered by playlists and auctions. I'm not crusading to keep them out, but if someone can't come up with a single reliable, encyclopedia worthy source about this band, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia. It's not like American rock bands are some obscure topic that has only been examined by a handful of people. Come up with one mention in Rolling Stone, one mention in a Rough Guide, something significant from some source, then we'll talk. Gamaliel 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I'm not going to try to sway anyone any which way, but I just want this post to establish my position. To be honest, I'm shocked and repulsed by Koavf's behavior towards me. He tagged this article for speedy deletion, which it clearly is not. From CSD A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject (can be speedily deleted). If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead." The reason for speedy deletion is so that you can eliminate blantant crap that is just pure nonsense or doesn't make an attempt to make the subject notable. Koavf thinks that not meeting WP:MUSIC is suddenly a reason for speedy deletion, the reason that this isn't true is because it's very difficult and completely agaisnt consensus (which Wikipedia is founded upon) to just delete something since it doesn't appear to be "notable." Speedy Deletions are meant for something that everyone can agree without reservation that it's terrible and not even remotely encylopedic. This article does stress the importance of the subjet and attempts to show how it meets WP:MUSIC. To be honest, I'm leaning towards a week keep based upon the context of the article and the new links that were revealed. Also, using allmusic.com, shouldn't be our one stop source for music, like Amazon being our one stop source for literature. It appears the attempt of meeting WP:MUSIC, is in the touring, opening acts, and record label. But, back to my original point: This article was not speedible and if you want to see more on this issue please see the article's talk page. Yanksox 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add sources. Just because a 20-years-defunct band has little internet prescence doesn't mean we need to give up on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with the lack of internet presence and everything to do with the lack of any sources at all. If there are sources to add, then add them. We shouldn't create articles and then hope there is information to back them up somewhere down the line. Gamaliel 16:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WillyD and Gamaliel. I know zip about music, but I know that there is no independent reliable source in this article. Sandstein 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A scholarly search turns up nothing on this band. Nothing in LexisNexis, nothing searching music journals, music publications, music criticism databases, or record company catalogs. If they were underground, they were too far underground for inclusion here. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The G-hits are scraps, but they establish that the band was on Enigma Records, a highly notable label. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuadFusion technology[edit]

appears to be utterly non-notable. I prod'd it, it was removed with the explanation "removing deletion tag". There's not enough redeeming quality to the article itself to overcome the fact that it is non-notable i kan reed 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as changed. Good work, people. DS 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatista[edit]

This page needs to be deleted for various reasons. Here is the list:

  1. Page is NPOV...quite frankly written by ardent and zealous supports
  2. Page is Un-encyclopdedic...some of the article is just unintelligable ramblings
  3. Article is a combination of two completely seperate articles...Zapatista EZLN and Emiliano Zapata
  4. Article is a cut and past from better wikipedia articles (see below)
  5. Article is well written and sourced when and encyclopdedic on these pages

This page needs to be deleted and a disamb page created for those two or three articles above. This page is a cut and past, way way below wiki standards and better articles already exist. I would create the page myself but I dont know how yet. Thank You. Disagreement? Oh BTW, I dont think this page should be saved or worked on. That was my first impulse but there are better articles already in existence. Jasper23 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your points 1–4 are a matter of Wikipedia:Cleanup, not reasons for deletion, and your point 5 is a matter for Wikipedia:Merger. None are reasons for deleting the article. Everything that you say is wrong with the article can be fixed via normal editing. Administrative privileges are not required. Indeed, not even an account is required. Please see our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read the article and the other articles in question. Merger would only dilute the good articles contents. Sorry, but deleting this article and creating a disamb. page for the others is the best solution. Jasper23 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Administrator privileges are not required in order to rewrite an article. As I said, everything that you say is wrong with the article can be fixed by normal editors using the normal editing tools. You have not stated any problem with the article that can only by fixed by an administrator hitting the delete button. Only bring things to AFD where that latter is what is required. Uncle G 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) - I'm not opposed to other outcomes (merge, disambiguify, etc) being discussed, and I'm not even opposed to an eventual redirect. But I suggest that editors interested in the subject work to reach a consensus on what that outcome would be, preferably on the article's talk page. In fact, make a note of this on the talk page of the other articles mentioned above, and see what consensus other editors reach on this one. But it's way to early in this discussion process to be suggesting deletion. -- H·G (words/works) 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A discussion on Talk:Zapatista already exists, and the nominator has already participated in it. Uncle G 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop asking me to edit the page. I began to do that and to create other pages for this article when I noticed that this article is a collection of "stubs" from better article. It is a cut and paste article and stub duplicates of better articles. The word zapatista should be used as a redirect for Emiliano Zapatista and the EZLN. If I knew how to do that I would. The very best way to edit this article would be to cut and past the two excellent articles, that I have already mentioned, into this article. Then to split the article in two. This article is a duplicate. Editing wont change that. Remove this article from the nominated deletion list if you like, however wikipedia quality will suffer.Jasper23 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very best way to edit this article would be to cut and past the two excellent articles, that I have already mentioned, into this article. Then to split the article in two. — There you go. At no point have you described a task that cannot be done by normal editors such as yourself hitting the "edit this page" tab and editing the relevant articles. No administrator intervention or AFD required. Be bold! Uncle G 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read any of the articles? Or my statement that you quoted "The very best way to edit this article would be to cut and past the two excellent articles, that I have already mentioned, into this article. Then to split the article in two. Do you get where I was going with that? How do you create a disambig. page. That could fix the problem.

    Here is the solution......turn this page into a disamb. page. If we do that then it doesnt need to be deleted (just blanked). Please, I am a new contributor and I am just looking for the best solution to what I see as a horrible oversight/problem that exists on wikipedia. Asking me to edit the page over and over again is rude. Remember I am a new user and dont know all the rules. I really wish that you would read the pages (I know quite a bit about this subject) and tell me how editing could possibly be a solution. When people search for zapatista they are looking for one of the two pages I listed above. All we need it a redirect/disambig. page. However, I dont know how to create one. Yeah, maybe I am in the wrong place and should never have asked for this article to be deleted. But I am acting in good faith to help the quality standards of wikipedia.Jasper23 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I already linked to Wikipedia:Be bold. The other link that you need is Help:Editing, which you've already seen with every edit that you've made to this page. I also refer you to the welcome message posted on your talk page on 2006-07-30. Please read all of what those three link to. Uncle G 01:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anubiz[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their website indicates they have a new album out, but their first is not evidently by a major or a notable independent label, so they still fail WP:MUSIC. Gernhart Records? Doesn't seem to be a notable indy.--Kchase T 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Does not yet meet criteria of WP:BAND. --Satori Son 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. – Robert 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Orozco[edit]

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levine2112 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy delete, bio with no assertion of notability, so tagged. NawlinWiki 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Now blanked by author, db-author tag added. NawlinWiki 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket City Math League[edit]

Local high school math league in Huntsville, AL -- not notable. NawlinWiki 17:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and, despite what it says on the league's website, I'm doubting that a math competition run by high school students can really be considered "international". -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember, the relevant definition of international is "open to teams from Canada" ;-> Septentrionalis 21:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN. Heck the main article Virgil Grissom High School is barely notable to me, but I'm not gonna kick that beehive. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ian¹³/t 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amorphy[edit]

Delete. This website fails WP:WEB. It is a nn website. In addition, the article reads like an advertisement. --דניאל talk contribs Email 17:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete non notable - amorphy.org produces 1 hit on google, "amorphy" produces about 600, but almost all are unrelated to this website. -Ladybirdintheuk 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Prolog 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE and REDIRECT. --Madchester 04:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Export A[edit]

  • Delete: Reads like an advertisement, fails notability Leuko 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE; The user above has no clue about this brand and probably doesn't smoke. Just because he doesn't know this brand does not make it insignificant. In fact it's one of Canada's oldest brands of cigarettes and is available at nearly ever tobacco store and kiosk in Toronto (where I live part of the year) and Oregon (where I live the rest of the year). It's so notable that the Government of Canada has Export A in their historical Database! Here is the text from the Government of Canada's archives;

RJR-Macdonald Inc. Since Before Confederation… In 1858, six years after moving to Montreal as oil commission merchants, William C. Macdonald and his older brother Augustine launched McDonald Brothers and Co. Tobacco Manufacturers. Initially the company imported tobacco from Kentucky and manufactured chewing and smoking tobacco plugs. The business prospered and in 1866 underwent a name change to W.C. McDonald Tobacco Merchants and Manufacturers. That same year the brothers initiated a heart-shaped logo and coined the phrase “tobacco with a heart” – a trademark that lasted more than a century.


RJR-Macdonald has carried on manufacturing in the Ontario Street, Montreal, building since 1876.

Many changes took place in the business. Augustine eventually left the company giving William full control. By 1876 expansion was necessary and the company moved its manufacturing facilities to Ontario Street East in Montreal, where the original building is still used today. The present buildings house both research and manufacturing facilities under the name RJR-Macdonald Inc.

With the growing financial success of the business, William became an integral part of the financial establishment of Montreal and the nation. Named a director of the Bank of Montreal, he established himself as a leading philanthropist, ultimately pouring millions of dollars into health and educational causes, particularly McGill University. Besides funding both a student and science building, he quietly provided numerous scholarships and endowed a number of chairs, one of them filled by Ernest Rutherford, famed pioneer of atomic research and future Nobel laureate.

For his generous support of various health and education causes he was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1898. At that time he changed the spelling of his thriving tobacco company name from McDonald to Macdonald. As Sir William, he continued to support rural education, providing funding for colleges in agriculture and household sciences in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. He also provided funding for the consolidation of Vancouver and Victoria colleges into the McGill University College of British Columbia, which later became the University of British Columbia.


The process of manufacturing tobacco products has evolved to present-day high-tech, state-of-the-art equipment. RJR-Macdonald Inc. produces more than 15 billion units annually for domestics and worldwide distribution.

Upon his death in 1917, Macdonald, a bachelor, left the company to the Stewart brothers who had started their careers with the company as clerks. Walter Stewart became president and under his management, the company extended production to cut pipe tobacco and the first “roll your own” finecuts. In 1922, cigarette production was added, cigarettes being sold in packages of 10s, 20s, and 50s. In 1928 Export cigarettes were introduced. First known as British Consol Export, the cigarette package became distinctive in 1935 with the addition of a Scottish lassie wearing a Macdonald of Sleat tartan kilt. Created by Canadian artist Rex Woods, the Lassie has remained a company symbol ever since.

During World War II, the company provided cigarettes to Canadian troops overseas. By 1945 fifty percent of the Canadian forces smoked Export cigarettes. This helped the company maintain a dominant share of the domestic market during the first postwar decade. Under Walter’s son David M. Stewart, the company diversified into cigar making during the ’60s.

The Stewarts retained ownership of the Macdonald Tobacco company until 1974 when it was bought by R.J. Reynolds Industries of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Four years later the name was changed to RJR-Macdonald Inc. to take advantage of the growing recognition of R.J. Reynolds as a major multinational corporation that was made even more so with the merger of R.J. Reynolds and the Nabisco Corporation of New York in 1985.

As a subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds International, RJR-Macdonald, now headquartered in Toronto, has the capability of drawing on the financial, technological and research resources of its international parent. It continues to produce a full range of Canadian cigarette brands, fine cut tobaccos, cigars, and cigarette papers. Most of its Canadian products are produced from Virginia flue-cured tobacco grown in southwestern Ontario. It also imports and distributes several well-known American brands which are manufactured by its sister company R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

The plant in Montreal has seen many changes, undergoing a major program of modernization and renovation during the ’80s. With state-of-the-art equipment, the plant is capable of producing more than 15 billion units annually, and has a reputation for producing high quality products, some of which are produced for and distributed by RJR affiliates in other parts of the world, such as Japan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

Operating in Canada for more than 138 years, RJR-Macdonald has been associated with many special causes and sporting events. For years it has provided financial assistance and marketing expertise to help promote sports such as downhill and freestyle skiing, curling, windsurfing, hockey, fishing, and recently hydroplane boating and golf. While sponsorship of such programs may be curtailed in the future by government legislation, the company remains committed to providing assistance to cultural, recreational, educational, and humanitarian institutions for as long as it can. It is also proud of its role as an equal opportunity employer, its long-standing record of good management-employee relations and its identity as a successful company with roots clearly and firmly established in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtobacco (talk • contribs)

NOTE: This is separate from RJR and was only recently purchased by them :( --Mrtobacco 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Or entirely rewrite to make it not sound like an ad. --דניאל talk contribs Email 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and stubbify. Considering the visibility of this brand in Canada, it certainly is notable enough to have an article. Afterall, Lucky Strike has an article. 132.205.93.19 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Deletion seems a little premature, but I agree that what little NPOV info contained in the article might be more suitable in the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company article until further notable information specific to Export A comes along. The supposed popularity of the cigarette does not lend support to its inclusion as a separate article as opposed to a redirect to R.J. Reynolds. On the other hand, an article discussing the history of this brand prior to its acquisition by R.J. Reynolds would merit separate inclusion in the encyclopedia. BFD1 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a textbook example of a "15 seconds of research would establish notability" nomination, and I suspect that the long newbiecruft here has led other editors to vote delete. The article needs work, but the brand itself is notable and comparable to Du Maurier (cigarette) as one of Canada's largest and most notable brands. BoojiBoy 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think that most of the delete votes are because of any lack of notability. Rather, it is because of a lack of useful information in this article. This article could be rewritten but it would have to be done from scratch anyway.--דניאל talk contribs Email 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agreed. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors, BoojiBoy. --Madchester 04:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Name brands of cigarettes are important elements of popular culture. Many, many works of literature make specific reference to them, and the distinction between brands is often a particular mark of character. personality and/or social aspirations. A person smoking, say, unfiltered Lucky Strikes has a different cultural connontation than someone smoking, oh, menthol Virginia Slims. Such distinctions are on the wane, as the rate of smoking declines, which is a strong case for WP documenting these brands, Export A included. One hundred years from now, the only way to understand just what an "Export A" was may well be by consulting WP. I'm not a smoker myself, but this has clear sociological notability. --Pagana 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a notable brand. Sources are verifiable. Doesn't really seem like advertising. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising for cargciongens --Xrblsnggt 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly comment above This is not supposed to be an anti-smokers forum - Export A is a notable brand regardless of your personal feelings against tobacco.--Mrtobacco 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AD and my personal belief that a single comment on an XfD which is longer than the article itself is never a good sign. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden: Source[edit]

Video game mod with no claims of notability. All original research and none of the information comes from reliable secondary sources. No attempts to meet any sort of verifiability requirements (no press coverage, etc...). It should be noted that this was kept in a previous AFD; however, there was never any rationale presented other than WP:ILIKEIT and Google hits (probably the worst gauge of video game-related notability. Wickethewok 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there a policy/guideline on re-nominating an article for deletion? Icewolf34 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically the only general guideline is that re-nominations should be carefully considered and not done immediately after a previous AFD (which in this case was 7 months ago). Wickethewok 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I see your point, I beg to differ. The article is useful and interesting, as it allows for the user to discover more about a mod they may potentially want to try without having to wade through the website (I know this from personal experience) and it does no harm to keep the article here. That's three arguments for it right there.--Chef Brian 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT actually covers "it's useful", "it's interesting", and "there's no harm". The first two destroy the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and the third one is simply false. ColourBurst 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it simply isn't notable. If this is better than the official website, then maybe that's a reason for the mod's creators to improve their website... — Haeleth Talk 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recieved a full page of coverage in PC Gamer UK[46], IGF 2006 finalist, covered by 1up.com and several other fansites noted on their front page. Yeah, that's notable enough for me. --SevereTireDamage 08:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per TireDamage. Having it's own article in a published magazine is better than about 99% of mods will ever do, notability-wise. More coverage would be nice though (and that article should be mentioned in this article, which sounds a little game-guidey at present) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is notable, I've seen reviews of this in magazines. Steam figures show 100 servers running this mod right now [47]. This easily has most press sources than 99% of the webcomics/forums/"fads" that pollute Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They have their list of mentionings on the website, just click those flashy buttons. IGF 2006 Finalist, some Editor's Choices. It was also on German TV (Giga link).
  • Keep - Counter Strike had an article before it was being sold by valve. 68.94.25.235 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: but make sure to add those sources --Peephole 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this game mod is notable actually and has press coverage Yuckfoo 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Attack (mod)[edit]

Primarily original research. Cites no secondary sources and doesn't seem to be verifiable by any reliable sources. Delete as such. Previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan of Attack (computer game)) gave no valid keep reasons whatsoever. Wickethewok 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article doesn't establish any inherent notability, and all of the external links are to sites which directly advertise the game. However, the article itself doesn't read like an ad, and "Plan of Attack"+"Half-Life 2" gets 250,000 Google hits and about 420 unique hits (although many of these are just sites that allow you to download the mod, or are message board posts). The previous AfD in no way established the game's significance, so I certainly can't allow a lot of Google hits to counterbalance an apparent lack of notability. -- Kicking222 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Featured in three German print magazines[48] (scroll down to June 30, 2005 for the actual magazine scans) as well as PC Gamer UK (which was actually mentioned in the previous AfD). This is quite probably verifiable. --SevereTireDamage 08:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep It's had a release and some press coverage. That's notable enough for me. Ace of Sevens 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SevereTireDamage, it's notable. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 09:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: but cite sources--Peephole 16:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Criminal: The Michael Jackson Story[edit]

User:Marginalia put this to speedy deletion with comment "Speculative information about 'rumored' film"; I denied this because it's not a CSD criterion. I PRODded this as "strong suspicion of a hoax. No IMDB entry, the 'official site' linked to in an article is a .tk site and the sources are a bit dubious too, indicating this is a rumour." Original author removed PROD without comment. The only thing I can add would be that I got 67 google hits, 37 unique, mostly message board hits. This screams "rumour". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA iMPACT! ratings[edit]

Wikipedia really doesn't need a list of ratings for each episode of any given TV series. I'm not sure this raw information could even be merged into TNA iMPACT!. Prod tag was removed by an anonymous user. Maxamegalon2000 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as TVcruft, or listcruft, or wrestlecruft....per nom. -- H·G (words/works) 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ratings == marketing data == advertising --Xrblsnggt 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Average over a period of time is useful, but should be on the article page itself. Daily information is of little or no use except on remarkable episodes. LinaMishima 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajatashatru Ashwathama[edit]

Vanity page along with two other pages Der Vielseitige Gelehrte Award and International Polyhistor Association all written by the same person and all linked to nominated page. Mattisse(talk) 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Additional articles:[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure what this is. Without more background to ascertain notability, the three articles seem to be a walled garden. Smerdis of Tlön 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a hoax or at least utterly non-notable. No relevant Ghits for the person (whose name seems to be constructed from two names out of Indian mythology), the association nor the award. The name of the award is half German, half English, which doesn't make it much plausible.
  • Delete sppsrent hoax Dlyons493 Talk 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep much as I detest this particular cover, it certainly is notable per the arguments listed below -- Samir धर्म 12:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"New Yorkistan"[edit]

Non-notable, possibly copyvio, unencyclopedic, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. --דניאל talk contribs Email 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what respect? What part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are you saying is relevant? Uncle G 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the article is simply written un-encyclopedically. It is simply a list of every area marked on this map of "New Yorkistan." --דניאל talk contribs Email 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a maxim that is far too often abused as a synonym for "I don't like this article.". None of the 7 items on that list apply to this article. It isn't a memorial, a FAQ, or a travel guide, for example. And List of counties in New York is also a list of areas marked on a map, as is Realms of Arda, so that is not a rationale for deleting an article. Uncle G 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except List of counties in New York are the real verifiable names of actual counties, all of which have information on them. This article is about an image with made up names and no further information beyond the names themselves. Surprisingly the image itself isn't shown in the page, presumably for copyright reasons. Ultimately, this is an article about a painting, without the painting. Also missing is the meaning behind the image or more accurately, the reason the image was created in the first place. The image was actually used in a much more appropriate article here (top right) but was deleted because of copyright issues. I don't see how you can have this article without the image. I'd like to see sources for what the meanings of each section are too. To my knowledge, the image was created without explanation, presumably leaving it to the viewer's interpretation as to the meaning behind each name. That would mean any definitions are purely speculative and unverifiable. It does seem to be a notable image though... Apparently you can buy it as a nice shower curtain. I think "List of covers of the New Yorker" might be a more appropriate place for it but again, without the actual images because of copyright issues, you don't have much. Reluctant Delete as it's a nice image and it gives you a little bit of perspective about New York. Unfortunately, without a comprehensive verifiable list of reasonings behind the place names, I don't see the article becoming much more than a bit of an inside joke for New Yorkers. All your left with is an image and an image on its own doesn't make an article. I'd vote for keep if we could:
            1. Get a verified explanation from the authors outlining their reason for creating the image.
            2. Get a verified list (again, from the authors) about how they came up with each location's name and what each name means.
            3. Include much more information verifying the images notability. Why is it an important image? What does it tell you about New York? What was the impact of the image on those who saw it (All from verified articles found in notable publications)?
            4. Get a copy of the image in the article.
          • Without all of those, you don't have much and at this point in time, I don't see how you could get any of them. You need more information like this in the article: The New Yorker Uncovers An Unexpected Profit Center Yay unto the Chicken 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't see how we could get more information and then point to an article from which we can get more information? That is self-contradictory. Why do you think that we should delete a stub article when you yourself have given at least one way in which it can be expanded? We don't delete stubs that are capable of being expanded.

              We used to have a copy of the image, by the way. Ironically, it was deleted because it was inappropriate to the article that it was used in, and this article, where it would have qualified as fair use, didn't exist at the time. Uncle G 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

              • The problem is the article I pointed to isn't enough. You still need information on the actual image itself and from what I've been able to gather, there isn't any. "New Yorkistan is an image that made the New Yorker lots of money" is information better placed in The New Yorker article rather than a new article. At the moment, all the information about the image I can find seems to say that it'd be better mentioned under a "Notable Covers" section in The New Yorker article (something I encourage you to do if this page is deleted). If you can find items 1 - 4 I outlined above, then it would warrant a separate article. My point is that that information simply doesn't seem to exist, which is unfortunate. My primary concern is that we're still lacking definitions for most of the names. Some of the definitions that are there are based purely on speculation occuring on a message board or someone's blog. Yay unto the Chicken 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • My point is that that information simply doesn't seem to exist, which is unfortunate. — The article itself says otherwise. Please actually read it. My primary concern is that we're still lacking definitions for most of the names. — We don't delete articles for being incomplete. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. it'd be better mentioned under a "Notable Covers" section in The New Yorker article — You have just argued that the article should be merged. Merger requires that the article be kept. Article merger is not deletion and does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The current article can be summed up into a one (at most two) paragraph summary which would be better placed in The New Yorker article. Other much more notable magazines covers do not have their own articles though in some cases, their titles exist as redirects to the magazine they appeared on. I apologise if technically, I should have said "summarise into a paragraph and add into New Yorker" instead of "delete". The only purpose that would seem to warrant an article is a full and complete list of all the names on the map with explanations but if we look at the list, of the 64 total names, only 25 have definitions. 39 remain unexplained. Of those that do have definitions, their meaning is sorely lacking. Gribinez: The Hudson River. "gribinez" is Yiddish for "cut-up chicken parts". And? What do "cut-up chicken parts" have to do with the Hudson river? Find me a source which explains why this meaning was given to the Hudson River. Khaffeine: A reference to coffee. Really? But why was this part of the map named after coffee? There are a lot of coffee stores there? It was just a funny name? Then there are other names. Central Parkistan: This is Central Park in Manhattan. Really? Again, so? Why was it called "Central Parkistan"? If the only reason is because "well, they added -istan on the end 'cause it sounded funny", do we really need that defined? Likewise Al Quarantine "it's a jail". That too seems fairly self-explanatory as a funny. As you can see, most of the definitions can be summarised with the sentence "because it sounded funny". We don't need an entire article for that. Half of the definitions that do exist were also taken from non-reputable sources. If you remove those, you are left with a succinct paragraph of information which is better placed in The New Yorker article. I can see that "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.", so I change my previous delete to Merge with the current article becoming a redirect. Yay unto the Chicken 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is copiously referenced, and neither original research nor unverifiable. The argument that it is stub that is incapable of expansion shot itself in the foot. Many different people, independent of the New Yorker, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Lilith, have considered the illustration notable enough to have published works of their own about it. (As the article says, at least one organization ranks it in the top 40 magazine cover illustrations of the past 40 years.) Per the primary notability criterion, it is therefore notable. Keep. Uncle G 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely more notable than many of the bands, their songs, their schools that pass muster here. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NN. Arguably it has a place within the Wiki entry for The New Yorker magazine, but having sold 750 copies is still a looong way from making it notable, and so what if it was a limited edition? It is a magazine cover, FFS, and still quite some distance to go until it is a work of art which deserves its independent listing here. Ohconfucius 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have just made a subjective judgement. That is not an evaluation of something's notability. Notability is not subjective. Being the subject of independently written full-length articles in two newspapers and an article in a journal (as well as all of the people who have written about it all over the World Wide Web, hypothesising their explanations for the various placenames) makes the subject notable. That something is notable is demonstrated by it having been noted, many times over and by quite a few people. Uncle G 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dispute that this is discussed "all over the web". With particular regard to my searches for a number of the names, I continually turn up only 6 or 7 pages at most and in most cases, it's the same 6 or 7 pages. Particularly the one New York Times article, a particular blog post and a thread on google answers. Most searches for "New Yorkistan" itself (without looking for place names) turn up many pages with only the image itself, with a note typically along the lines of how funny it is. Yay unto the Chicken 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should keep this article. It clearly is notable to The American Society of Magazine Editors who gave it an award. I'm not sure how this could be a copy vio as nothing appears to have been copied. And what is unencyclopediac about it? The Mona Lisa is encyclopediac and it's "only a picture" as well, the only difference is the medium in which the artwork appears. Is magazine art any less worthy of an article than any other art? It's a work of satire that was popular enough for it to be re-sold as home decoration (posters/lithographs). Mallanox 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Duane 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Uncle G. More explicitly, the cover has had multiple independent articles written about it in other sources such as the New York Times, so notability is easy. Also, the causes for the names have been discussed in said articles in WP:RS sources, so they aren't an issue either. JoshuaZ 01:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to AND1 Mixtape Tour.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And 1 Mixtape[edit]

It's not clear what this even is (is it a tape, a television program, a floor wax, a dessert?), but either way, it's a virtually empty stub with no sources. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to And 1AND1 Mixtape Tour - "And 1 Mixtape" is a TV show on ESPN2 usually that pretty much just has clips of basketball games from the And 1 Touring players. It really doesn't need its own article and no real information to merge, so redirect. Wickethewok 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AND1 Mixtape Tour - There's no need for separate entries for the tour and tapes, but it should be disambiguated from And 1 shoes. Garrepi 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Aside: I love And 1 Streetball (the show and videos; I've never played the game, but reviews were not good) with a passion. -- Kicking222 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Grip[edit]

Half Life 2 mod with no claims of notability, no reliable sources, original research, etc... The previous AFD was ruled a "no consesus", though the keep arguments did not provide any reasoning at all. Delete. Wickethewok 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete game mods tend not to be notable unless they're very famous and/or sold in stores (e.g. Counter-Strike) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Recury 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unreleased mods. If it comes out and goes over really well, recreate it. Ace of Sevens 22:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No More Room in Hell[edit]

Has been previously deleted, but am putting it here per the article creator's protests and strictly speaking is not word-for-word recreation of previous deleted material. Nothing has changed in its notability since last time and it still has no reliable sources and is not verifiable by any secondary sources. Delete again. Wickethewok 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I only wish to point out that having this article here will help to inform the public community of what, to them, could be a potentially fun mod to try. By having information and links available, they can see for themselves if it sounds like something they would like to try. The article is interesting and useful in this way, and in no way causes any harm by existing. --Chef Brian 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, still, and forever. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any arguments to support your point? --Chef Brian 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguments? By your own admission it's Spam, Advert, Not Notable, and Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. Would you like more? --Bschott 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being crude, but when the hell did I say that it was anything even remotely related to spam? When did I even say any of that? What I said was that it is a useful article among the PC gamer community. If you don't play PC games, then I understand your reluctance, but believe me when I say it will save many a gamer a migraine trying to find reliable info on the mod. Provided you give us the time to ensure the information is reliable, that is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chef Brian (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning we cover things that have already become notable and gotten coverage from reliable sources per our verifiability policy. We're not here to advertise anything new, but rather to inform the public about pre-existing notable phenomena. Sorry.--Kchase T 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-gamers may find that this is a "waste of space", but the fact remains that it is, in fact, a practical way for gamers to read up on one of the most notable zombie mods among the gaming community. It is not notable among the mainstream, but it is among the PC gaming community, and spreading the word on things you DON'T KNOW ABOUT is the entire point of an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Or did you forget that this was, in fact, an encyclopedia and not a big list of things people already know about? You're perpetuating the myth that all wikipedia users care about is mainstream information that everyone knows already, and that none of us care about the littler things that maybe, just maybe, few people outside of its main circle know about. --Chef Brian 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find sources and I'll reconsider.--Kchase T 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, "spreading the word" is NOT the point of an encyclopedia. Spreading the word is the point of advertising sites, news sites, and community sites. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide reliable information about important subjects. I'm not judging whether this is important or not, but I do question the reliability of the information: per policy, we cannot accept articles that are not backed up by reliable sources. And this one isn't; indeed, there is no reliable information available on this mod yet, because it hasn't been released yet. We cannot simply take the mod's authors' word for it that the mod will even ever exist: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Therefore, this article simply cannot be kept at present. — Haeleth Talk 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Chef, I'll refer you to WP:CIVIL as you are border-line here. Next, I am a very avid PC gamer (I had HL2 the day it came out. I own 9 working computers and get 5-6 hours of PC time in after I get home from work) and have heard about this mod via gaming boards. Please stop making assumtions on other people. Reguardless of all that, this does not meet wiki's policies for the points made here. --Bschott 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Like Bschott, I'm a hardcore gamer (although I'm a console man), and I find this article... well, not a "waste of space", but an ad for a non-notable mod. -- Kicking222 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • this [is], in fact, an encyclopedia and not a big list of things people already know about — Actually, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, that is a rough approximation of what we are attempting to create here, and what a tertiary source encyclopaedia is.

      You're perpetuating the myth that all wikipedia users care about is mainstream information — No, they aren't. But you are propounding the fallacy that "mainstream" and "already documented outside of Wikipedia" are equivalent.

      The assertions here are that this article is unverifiable and original research. The only way to counter those arguments is to cite sources, filling up the References section of this article (which is currently empty) and demonstrating that it is possible to verify the article and that knowledge of the subject has been through a process of publication, fact checking, and peer review, and has already become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. All of the other arguments that you are making are irrelevant. Continue to argue along those lines, instead of citing sources, and you will not save the article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. Please use MySpace instead. Or Geocities - ever been to Geocities? WilyD 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Already has a mention on List of Half-Life 2 mods which is more than enough. Ziggur 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not webhosting, and already in the HL2 article, not notable enough to have own article. Kudos to the mods creator. Get real popular, make lots of money, sell a bunch and then c'mon back. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one who helped create the first NMRiH wiki, and defended that one till the end. This one was the product of newbie forum members who had no idea about the first webpage. I don't think you can get a strong notion for "delete" then from the person who originally created the first wiki. --StukaAce 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stuka EDIT: and protect from re-creation to prevent something like this happening again- Noob cannon lol 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukasz Dumanski[edit]

Joke article. Delete Essexmutant 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Contains near no content, the person doesn't qualify per WP:BIO. --Porqin 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 2005 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above —Kymacpherson 04:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS Gah, it should probably have been speedied in the first place. -Doc 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghea Dahliana Oktarin[edit]

  • Clearly a vanity article. Shruth 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned up, therefore STRONG KEEPZlatkoT 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IsraPundit[edit]

A non-notable, self-promoting page. About 80 unique google hits, and Alexa around 65k. Its "claim to fame" is simply being linked to by Little Green Footballs Ich 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Henshall[edit]

Non-notable and vanity. Ich 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeedBurner[edit]

Non-notable and self-promoting Ich 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:Spam BFD1 01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was edited by three different active users, with no issues hilighted on their talk page. I'm not quite sure I understand how this could be spam. --Interiot 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torch it Spam --Xrblsnggt 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Alexa rank #500 [49], 30 million google hits [50], 12,000 usenet hits [51]. Passes WP:WEB based on mentions in Wired [52], CNET [53], Yahoo News [54], ... --Interiot 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google is flawed, we've deleted many more notable things. Ich 05:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google "flaws" notwithstanding, there is some serious contention that this article meets WP:WEB. The searches provided by Interiot indicate a few media reports on the subject, particularly through Wired, and his recent revision of the article reflects this well. And an Alexa ranking of 500 is no small matter. -- H·G (words/works) 07:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also have to admit that I get curious when someone claims that Google hit counts are invalid because of flaws in the search engine. The Google Test is an established, largely reliable tool for AfD discussions and, when coupled with other arguments for or against deletion, its use in these discussions in quite valid. Granted, in this case the subject only gets 868 unique hits out of 30+ million, but that's not really a small amount for unique hits--hell, a Google search for "Google" only yields 553 unique Ghits. Couple this with the news accounts, and we've got an obvious keeper here. -- H·G (words/works) 07:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "unique hits" count only comes from the first 1,000 Google hits, which is why the # of unique hits could never theoretically be more than 1,000. -- Kicking222 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interiot and HG. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interiot. Alexa ranking and Google hits, ahoy! -- Kicking222 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interiot. Also, take a look at who they are claiming as commercial customers and their statistics - impossible to verify if the stats are accurate, but from the number of times I've seen blogs using them, they seem plausable. - makomk 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here looking for a page to link people to for basic information on Feedburner, since the independent news project I'm a part of uses Feedburner to handle its feeds and I'm trying to write documentation for the website for future sysadmins. This looks like a simple, informational article that appears to be well-sourced and coherently written. I say keep it and improve upon it. --Skyfaller 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Company is without a doubt notable. If you polled a bunch of people who follow web technologies, I doubt you'd find many who hadn't heard of FeedBurner. AlistairMcMillan 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work, but the impact Feedburner has had on the feed community is pretty obvious. When news services such as Reuters and even Wikinews use Feedburner rather than make their own feed, you know it's made an impact. Fix it up and it'll do fine. mountainfire 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto Socialist Republic[edit]

Non-notable micronation. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:V and more ... WilyD 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this was vandalism, just starkly inappropriate encyclopedia content. See WP:OR and WP:V for the main problems here. Mangojuicetalk 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this data is reliable because I put it up, and I am the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Diplomacy for the CSR. We might be non-notable currently, but that does not mean we might be notable in the near future. I also do not see how this is considered vandalism. -Comrade General Giovanni Fabrici (wolfkorps)
    • Unfortunately, information provided by you yourselves that we cannot verify independently counts as original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Also, writing an article about your own micronation might be considered vanity by some users. Finally, if you do become notable in the near future, naturally nobody will object if you create an article when that's happened! — Haeleth Talk 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty badly fails verification by any outside source. On the other hand, if they put any citizens on Callisto I'll gladly change my vote. Fan-1967 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jesus f***ing christ, what nonsense. For the sake of completeness, zero Google hits for the phrase (in quotes). -- Kicking222 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Grafiks[edit]

Non-notable web-comic. Ugh. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete no sourced claims to notability made -- Samir धर्म 11:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Scott[edit]

Not Notable, WP:AUTO. prod removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff on the grounds that he meets WP:BIO; it is possible that he might, but I'm not sure whether Scott was a starting player at Florida A&M; given the lack of media coverage, I suspect not. I also don't think that Wikipedia needs an entry on every Division I college football player ever (let alone other sports) - that is an awful lot of entries. --Brianyoumans 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Florida A&M is a division I school, and given that he was a walk-on captain and a player for a division I school, I think he squeaks through the notability situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the article says Florida State University not A&M, thats a prety big distinction. This article really needs some sources, especially for the quote at the bottom and for him being captain although he was a walk-on at one point. The creator of the article is KScott whose only contribs have been to the article in question so I'm a little concerned that no verifiable sources will be found. DrunkenSmurf 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm finding reprints of the Florida State media guides that list him as in the program during 1993-5, but I'm not comfortable presenting them as sources at this very moment. I'm not sure where the A&M stuff comes from, but they're both D-I programs. I'll be back with more in a couple hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that that was where I had found a reference to him. Ah, here for example. He is evidently a rusher, but had no actual carries for FAMU in this game. Addendum: perhaps there is more than one KS? --Brianyoumans 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More scraps of info: according to rosters at si.com and elsewhere, he appears to have been first a Left Tackle, later a Left Guard, in the years 2002-2004. The listings as a rusher, I would theorize, probably came from plays where they lined him up as a fullback in order to block. Other than rosters, I don't see any discussion of him, so I have no idea how much he played. I don't see any sign he was a particularly notable player. --Brianyoumans 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN, at least not yet. C'mon, a quote from the team chaplain? Make it big, get a bishop or a cardinal quote, then c'mon back. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted, by request of article author. The Anome 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SWoRD System[edit]

According to article text [55] (reference subsequently deleted by the author), this article about a software project is written by its author. WP:NOT a vehicle for self-publicity. There appear to be numerous other far more notable systems called the SWORD system: this one gets only 8 Google hits [56], of which one is this article and two are on its author's homepage.

  • Delete: self-publicity about an apparently nn software project. -- The Anome 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while the article is horrid, there are inline references - that is all WilyD 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the comments seem insulting. A google search cannot define the verifiability of a topic especially when the search is wrong and from those who do not know the content.

    There is no other system called the SWoRD system other than this one in the software categories. The reason we put it as the SWoRD system in Wikipedia is because sword is a general term that already is used. Here is another google search. [57]. You will see about 10 pages-long hits.

    I am very willing to delete the article.

    However you should understand we scaholars publicize our research and its results for public services and not for self-publicity. And we use our names to put professional credibility to the findings.

    Sorry about the inline reference I should edit the article but the editing was undergo. but I wonder now do i need to if the article is doomed to be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksthink (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09 21:29:56

    • The onus is on you to cite sources. If no sources are cited and editors cannot find any sources after doing their best to locate some, then an article is unverifiable. If the sources don't already contain the analysis, synthesis, or documentation presented by the article, then it is original research.

      we use our names to put professional credibility to the findings — There was an encyclopaedia project to do that. It failed. Here at Wikipedia, where "anyone can edit", we know that relying upon the reputations of editors is impractical and in the overwhelming majority of cases outright impossible. Therefore we employ Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have come to Wikipedia expecting "Trust me, I'm a doctor." to work here, then you have come here with a false expectation. Uncle G 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response This comment is helpful. In fact I was following your comments by citing sources but the following comment from Xrblsnggt seemed to make me uncomfortable. I may need more practice of writing for laypeople. --ksthink
  • Delete as gibberish. I read the first 5 paragraphs and still have no idea what this is. Just a bunch of ivory tower buzzwords. --Xrblsnggt 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Very sorry for putting gibberish. I removed the article as you wish. --ksthink
  • Delete per not a webhosting site, please use sourceforge.net. And now it's been blanked by the author, does that become a speedy requested deletion? — MrDolomite | Talk 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corsale[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO, and reads a lot like a WP:VAIN piece. Only claim to notability is appearing in a few TV shows and commercials with no claim to how important he was to those shows (the article says he is a film and TV extra, so that seems to be it), some shots in magazines and a charity fashion show, and having been featured in an episode of "Who'll Age Worst" (which is probably no more notable than the thousands of people who have appeared on any of the dozens of home/garden/wardrobe/life improvement shows that litter daytime TV). Additionally, there are precisely two GHits for his name, neither of which are relevant. Probably speedyable, but throwing it open to AfD since it keeps getting removed anonymously. ~Matticus TC 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rather large piece for a person who appeared in only a few non-notable shows and commercials. The way this person's other achievements are listed make it seem like vanity, too. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from..." --Xrblsnggt 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, WP:VSCA and any article in which includes "born in 1983", "balls of steel", "bedded", "strip/dance troupe". Strip troupe or dance troupe, but please, not both. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save. I agree to some extent with the above comments. However I saw this young man on television some time ago and have followed his career since, notably his charitable work. News on him currently circulating suggest he has landed a role in a major Hollywood film alongside A-list stars. Though these ladies or gentleman may be correct that this page does not warrant its place now, it no doubt will do very soon, is there point it being deleted only to be rewritten in the near future. ClintAdams 07:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)ClintAdams ba,dcm,mm.[reply]

i love him and wont stop till he is all mine x x x gloria tingleford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.26.183 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Registry[edit]

Non-notable advert. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was just about to nominate this myself. Website was newly formed in Jan 2006, has no Alexa ranking, and the article was created by Michael Allen, the website admin and CEO (who also added his name to the Michael Allen and List of CEOs pages, since removed). Vanity and advertisement, pure & simple. -- Slowmover 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For leveraging paradigm value add. --Xrblsnggt 03:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under A7 The JPStalk to me 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Femme Fatality[edit]

Non-notable band. I keep on inserting {{db-band}}, but the guy keeps on vandalizing it out. I'll just put it here and get it deleted, I guess. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Carson[edit]

This article has no where to go. It is a minor reference with in the movie universe of V for Vendetta. It definitely does not require its own article. User:VFerVendetta has repeatedly taken the speedy tag off this article. Sparsefarce 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete... and certainly do something about VFerVendetta. The user obviously doesn't know how Wikipedia works. RobJ1981 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... and target all the socks. Not even worth a mention in the movie article. Apparently this is the name of an unknown band whose articles have been repeatedly speedied ([58], [59]), so they're trying to get their name back in somehow. Fan-1967 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Yet another sock just blanked the AFD page. Seems the band's not too bright, and don't realize all edits are clearly visible and easily reversed. Fan-1967 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, based on those edits, they're also about twelve. Is this a middle-school band? Fan-1967 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a note They just vandalized my userpage again to redirect to this. Hmm... This is one of the most amusing AfD discussions I've been involved with. Sparsefarce 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Oh, okay, so according to this[60] he was trying to get my user page deleted in retaliation. Sparsefarce 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the contribs of the original editors of the article, a well as the anon contributor to the discussion page, I believe there's some support for my speculation above about the age of the participants. Fan-1967 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though mentioning the rose on the 'V for Vendetta' article would be an option. -- Xinit 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • D for Delete: If it's worth noting, it will show up in the V for Vendetta article. Mitaphane talk 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.Qudsi[edit]

The article is self promotional. It is not conicidental that the original contributor is known on Wiki as qudsi. Major inconsistencies spill the beans.The person is hardly known in Kerala. If every writer of sorts gets an article, miring up of relevant information will be the result. Cruxit 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can convince me otherwise. The google hits are all of fairly nn books. I haven't heard of him, though I am familiar (atleast by name) with most of the prominent Malayalam writers. Tintin (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Curiously, the creator of the article (who is presumably the subject as well) recently blanked this article Tintin (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With a Google test I would have voted for a keep. However, Tintin is right. All his translations are of non notable books. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitwanking[edit]

Stupid neologism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete w/o sources as WP:V requires. Also per nom.--Kchase T 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:V and I'm almost positive WP:HOAX WilyD 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are we sure that this is a hoax? As distasteful as it is, I would not put it past pornographers and deviants to have a subculture related to this. - Richardcavell 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure (hence almost positive), but I am sure it fails WP:V, which is good enough to drop the axe. WilyD 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You need some help. --Xrblsnggt 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion given.--SB | T 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Uniforms[edit]

Move to Memory Alpha. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't move to M-A b/c of licensing issues, but otherwise it's fancruft of unnecessary detail for WP.--Kchase T 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to one of the other articles about Starfleet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified original research.--Isotope23 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its sourced and verified and certainly not original research. --Cat out 22:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment it is sourced now, but still Original research as Uncle G has stated below.--Isotope23 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement is self conflicting. --Cat out 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. The article is directly citing images of the uniforms. An appropriate source would be an article discussing the uniforms. The standard for sources here is not Trek canon policy (i.e., "what is shown on screen"). The standard is published secondary sources. Please try to assimilate this concept. —ptk✰fgs 18:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The offical policy is the use of published "primary (show itself - preferable) and secondary (tech manuals, interviews, etc...) sources. Other sources should be considered in the absence of primary & secondary or unless absolutely necesary.
    Furthermore the source in question is a secondary source. All those images are not from the show but how the artist drew them. They MAY be from a tech manual. I highly reccomend droping various star trek quotes because they do not fit in the discussion.
    --Cat out 18:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Cat out 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uniforms (costumes) in star trek universe developed over time along with rank insignias.
    The change is visible on the show itself so original research is not an issue. There was significant change in uniforms with first two movies and later in tng. Even branch colors changed. The uniforms of the 29th century stafleet (as portrayed on voyager) were nothing like the ones used on the TNG enterprise.. yada yada yada...
    --Cat out 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, original research is an issue. As things stand, the only sources cited by this article are simple galleries on a web site of pictures of Starfleet uniforms (not even actual screenshots from the shows, note), sans any descriptive text at all and sans anything that supports statements such as "Skirts were authorized for women, however, these were optional and uncommon." made by this article. This article should cite far better sources, to indicate that this isn't a novel synthesis and analysis of pictures of Starfleet uniforms. Contrast this article with Starfleet ranks and insignia#References. Uncle G 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm.... Uniforms' colors and shapes are visible on the show. Picard does wear red unlike Kirk who wore yellow. In TNG yellow is the engineering & security divisions color. Skirts appeared very rarely on non TOS era series such as TNG or even on Voyager. Actual screenshots are visible throughout wikipedias character articles. I am not certain how to present screenshot info on the article since just in TNG there are like four different uniforms... (duty, dress, etc...)
    Comment, I think you misunderstand the concept of original research Cat. Yes the Uniforms' colors and shapes are visible on the show (and in the galleries you've linked)... but by creating an article describing these uniforms based on the pictures, you are performing an act of original research and is explicitly refered to in the WP:NOR policy "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments..."). My deletion reasoning stands as this is still original research and still has no sources that describe these uniforms.--Isotope23 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure there are. See any star trek screenshot that appear on the page or on wikipedia or on the web. See Jean-Luc Picard and James T. Kirk and then tell me if the uniforms changed at all. My primary source is on screen appearances. Anything else is unoffical or semi-official. You are unsatisfied with the official source. --Cat out 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We could argue about this all day... but I again point you to WP:NOR; writing an article based on screen appearances of the uniforms is original research... It's not a primary source. I have no issue with the officiality of the sources, but you need to find a primary source that actually has published a uniform comparison for this to be an acceptible and sourced article.--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed. Let's not confuse canon policy with WP:V/WP:NOR. —ptk✰fgs 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but completely ignoring official publication (the show itself) and relying on other sources sounds like a very very bad idea to me. --Cat out 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Article does need better citation (just like all articles), I am not arguing about that. But original research means that I and other contributor(s) are making it all up which isn't the case. Furhermore tha article has only been around for like a day so I do not think it is prudent to expect proper citation.
    --Cat out 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Again, I think you misunderstand the concept of original research as it relates to Wikipedia. Original research does not mean "made up". It means that contributors have crafted an article that is not based on external sources... it is in fact based on their own research into a topic. If you can find an external website that describes these uniforms in detail, this would be a perfectly acceptible article, but as it stands, basing these descriptions off of images or viewing the show is expressly prohibited by the no original research policy. Furthermore, I don't agree with your contention that we cannont expect proper citation because the article has only been around for a day. The article should have never been created without proper citation. I speak only for myself here, but I'm not a fan of the concept of letting an article sit out in the main space unsourced while we let the creators try to find sources that they should have been using to create the article. That is what we have sandboxes for.--Isotope23 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mass afd practicaly all stub pages out there on wikipedia. Beacuse that is what you are suggesting. --Cat out 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And violate WP:POINT? No, I don't think so...--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. Recury 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying costumes werent worn on the show? How can I cite sources then? Screen shots of characters on wikipedia are evidence enough. --Cat out 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes That's exactly what we're saying. What we're not saying is "this is irrelevant, unencyclopedic information." If you really want, go to Memory Alpha; I'm sure you can make something like this there. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not order people off of wikipedia. Its rude and incivil.

    Topic is notable enough to have its article. Is it cruft to write about US military ranks, and rank insignias?

    How about articles related to Fashion (Category:Fashion)? All cruft? This is what it's really about... Star trek fashion... The creators of the show have said that "sex appeal" on TOS was an important factor. For instance, with ultra short mini skirts they appealed the men and with repetive kirk fleshy shots they appealed the women. (man 60's were simple)

    --Cat out 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply I didn't order anyone off Wikipedia, and "incivil" isn't a word; at least not in English. I suggested that you can take this information to a more appropriate venue - Memory Alpha. Don't take it personally, and don't act like this is some fight between you and me. Do you honestly not understand the difference between US military ranks and Starfleet Uniforms? Are you telling me they're equally encyclopedic? I don't even know what "the creators of the who have said that 'sex appeal' on TOS was an important factor" is supposed to mean. The article does not deserve to be here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I and dictionary.com (which sources Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) disagree with you over the status of the word "incivil".
    I do not contribute to other wikis aside from wikipedia with the exeption of our sister sites such as wikimedia commons. I hence do not care what happens to memory alpha. Please do not suggest "move" to non-foundation operated sites in the future, at least to me.
    Of course there are differences between starfleet ranks and US naval ranks however they are fundementaly simmilar. The starfleet ranks were derived from the US mil ranks which I believe were derived from british ranks. Notability is a binary concept on wikipedia. Something is either encyclopedic or it isnt. Suggesting that a topic is superior to another is a breach of WP:NPOV..
    The approach to costumes on TOS and TNG were significantly different. Picard was bald for instance. "sex apeal" returned with seven of nine and later t'pol. This is only one of the interesting issues that shaped star trek costumes on different serries which can be covered on this article.
    --Cat out 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, I voted delete above, and I still must agree with Cool Cat that your comment was too dismissive. Cat's not some crazed fan, but a prolific contributor to lots of other articles on wikipedia.--Kchase T 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, sure it's cruft, but so what? ReverendG 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I voted keep at first, but even this short article is long on detail that would only be of interest to devoted fans - that is, fancruft. Gazpacho 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "CRUFT" is a deletion criteria... Why does Gothic fashion exist then? It is of interest to "devoted fans" only...
    No, it's also of interest to, e.g., parents and schoolteachers. Many users consider fancruft to be indiscriminate collection of info. Gazpacho 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. In that context pedophilia, George W. Bush, F-14 Tomcat, Dalek, and Quantum Mechanics (random list of articles) should be deleted too. No school teacher, or parent would be ever interested in any of those topics just like they would not care about this article or Star Trek. --Cat out 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI that isn't accurate and doesn't begin to make sense anyway. Gazpacho 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So article isn't perfect... The correct action is to improve it rather that delete. Article was just started. Don't expect featured status a day after an article is created. Besides we encourage detailed coverage in articles not discourage it. Starfleet uniforms are complicated enough to require an article or two. See: [61]
    --Cat out 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, an article or two on Memory Alpha. Gazpacho 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR; as noted above, all sources are just picture galleries. Sandstein 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, uniforms require that. Text is just inadequate to compare the change in uniforms... --Cat out 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, trekcruft. wikipediatrix 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and cruft. Indrian 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cat Computerjoe's talk 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Summarising the hole thing...
    1. On Star Trek, only on screen appearances are considered cannon after deducing camera errors. All websites and/or books fail WP:V. It is original research to relly on external sites rather than screenshots.
    2. It is not cruft to say that since the 1960's Star Trek uniforms have changed. A very simple comparasion of uniforms between James T. Kirk (predominantly yellow uniform) and Jean-Luc Picard (predominantly red and black uniform) or even Jonathan Archer (predominantly blue uniform) shows the difference.
    --Cat out 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. So styles have changed, big whoop! are we going to see Costumes of Baywatch, M*A*S*H Uniforms, Hogan's Heroes Uniforms, and others. Eek! Carlossuarez46 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The color change from TOS to TNG and DS9 is of note, is mentioned in the DS9 Episode Trouble with Tribbles when they go back in time. Someone may wonder why the colors changed and find this article. Could use better sources, but I'd bet they are out there. JPotter 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason to delete:
  1. I really don't think this falls under original research. If there were verifiable references that described the uniforms for each of the series, these references could be used to create a page that similarly describes the uniforms on each series, even if each reference described the uniforms of only one series. Collecting various material on related topics is not OR. Consider an article like 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake: many different sources are used without constituting OR. There may be some elements of OR in this article, but these can be removed without deleting the whole article.
  2. Lack of references is not generally used as a reason to delete article on non-controversial topics.
  3. Fancruft is an ill-defined expression of opinion. –RHolton≡– 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perfectly encyclopaedic topic, the screencaps are very helpful in communicating the changes. I'm inclined to say "yes, it's fancruft, but that's no reason to delete it". And it's not really not *that* trivial after all. Stevage 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very poor. However, a good article on the topic could be written: perhaps at Costuming in Star Trek instead. There are various secondary sources (the "Making Of" books and the Star Trek periodicals) that could be used for this. Morwen - Talk 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and I agree with your first point "If there were verifiable references that described the uniforms for each of the series, these references could be used to create a page that similarly describes the uniforms on each series...", but nobody is producing such references... All that is being provided is picture gallaries and as I've noted exhaustively above this violates WP:NOR.--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's what i said, isn't it? I'm making a list of possible leads and stuff at Talk:Starfleet Uniforms. Morwen - Talk 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what you said, but the point is that until such references are proved to exist, this is originial research. I still don't see anything at Talk:Starfleet Uniforms that suggests such sources exist and are forthcoming... and that is the crux of the problem. Finding such sources and referencing them in the article would at least demonstrate there is an attempt here to put this article in compliance with the WP:NOR policy. Right now this article clearly violates WP:NOR.--Isotope23 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this book is merely one of many examples. There is also an extensive Star Trek behind the scenes literature, including a book called "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry (released back in the 1960s, historically a very early "making of" book). There are equivalant volumes for other Star Treks: certainly for TNG and DS9, and apparently there is a "Making of Star Trek: the Motion Picture" thingy. A regular monthly Star Trek magazine has published in the United Kingdom since 1995, and features many many interviews. The problem here is not the absence in reality of sources, it's just that they're not being used - the article is in any case garbage as it is presenting an entirely in-universe perspective.Morwen - Talk 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, now we are getting somewhere. I'm not familiar with these books offhand, but if they contain an actual discription of the uniforms, that would be a source, they could be referenced in a bibliography (meeting WP:V), and this article would no longer be original research. I suggest adding these sources to the article (and any others you are aware of), using reference tags to show which uniform descriptions are based on sources as opposed to original research... when I get a chance this weekend I will look into those you've listed. I'm not concerned with the quality of the article (it can always be tagged for cleanup) just that it meets the big 2 policies of verification and no original research.--Isotope23 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
morwen I am sorry but almost all of the books are considered semi-cannon including that one. Often certain "facts" about the series conflict in such books such as in rank insignias. They can be used as sources but the Screen appearances is the only accepeted cannon and is fundemenntaly superior to all sources. Its really obvious what color is picards uniform. --Cat out 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please spare me this 'canon' blithering. Where is the canon that "Chief Medical Officers typically wore a blue overcoat in addition?" If I remember correctly we have one datapoint here: Beverley Crusher. I can't remember if Pulaski wore one. In any case, that sentence is entirely speculation. "Skirts were authorized for women" is another speculative sentence : all we could fairly say from observation is that "skirts were seen worn by both men and women in season 1, but rarely appeared after this". Please read WP:FICT. Morwen - Talk 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I already said citation would be nice. It might be prudent to point out on what episode a spesific issue is covered. The red surgical uniform was worn on a spesific episode for the first time, thats proper citation. Same goes with the dress uniforms and etc. All I am saying is that I am not required to use a written source. I do not like this discussion of article content on this AFD pag, please take it to the articles talk page. --Cat out 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Watching TV is not original research. 169.139.222.5 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, but writing an article about what you saw on TV is...--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. The TV show is the primary source. Not everything that appears on a show is avalible in written media as copyrights for one prohibit it. Orriginal requires a work to be published, the TV shows are published. And in the case of Star Trek it was published internationaly. This is ridiclous. --Cat out 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously have no experience in academia. Original research is the creation of a secondary source from primary sources. Primary sources include letters, journals, newspapers, and television shows. Orignial research is what forms the basis for the majority of mongraphs and journal articles and the like on a variety of topics. An encyclopedia article, on the other hand, is drawn primarily from secondary sources. There is nothing wrong, to be sure, with using primary sources to further inform an existing article, but the basis of that article should be information that has already been synthezised in a secondary source. This article comes entirely from watching the television show and reporting what the article creator observed. It is factual and verifiable, but it is still an original work of scholarship that therefore violates policy. When someone writes a book or journal article or research paper on Star Trek uniforms, then it will fulfill the requirement of no original research. Indrian 18:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Academia? Of course. That must be it. One requires a PHD to tell that Picards uniform is red... --Cat out 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not be color-blind, anyway. --Cyde Weys 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or blind all together. :P --Cat out 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, User:Cool Cat, I again implore you to read WP:NOR, it is very clear and concise regarding this ("Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy") The show is published, but these descriptions of the uniforms are not. You need to find a written source for this.--Isotope23 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, the application of WP:NOR is entirely invalid, because nobody is disputing the content of this article. Bastique▼parler voir 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organizing information found in primary sources, such as a television show, is explictly permited by WP:NOR. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." - SimonP 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A perfectly legitimate article (albeit a bit Star Trek specific) that, unlike most "fancruft", cites its sources quite well. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fancruft, but notable fancruft. Bastique▼parler voir 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Kjetil_r 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This does not meet the standards of non-notability for deletion. Also, the suggested Transwiki to Memory-Alpha is impossible because they use an utterly incompatible non-commercial license. Cyde Weys 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and write out the contents of Wikipedia:No original research until you understand it. —Phil | Talk 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen worse cruft, why is everyone always picking on Star Trek?--152.163.101.5 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's an encrypted Klingon subroutine in the encyclopedia. The series on Starfleet uniforms at Memory Alpha basically makes this look like a substub anyway: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. —ptk✰fgs 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm.. Thats like saying we should delete President because www.whitehouse.gov covers it better. --Cat out 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really. If we had an entire wiki devoted to the presidency, then that would apply. —ptk✰fgs 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that context if there is a wiki devoted to covering any topic all wiki pages to that should be deleted. What kind of an encyclopedia would that be? Hard drives are cheep man... We are talking about pennies here. --Cat out 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually... no, not even then. We're not talking about deleting Star Trek or even Star Trek: The Animated Series. Not even in the mirror universe is this AFD comparable to an AFD on President. It's more like deleting an article about one of Michael Dukakis' interns. We only need so many articles about Trek, and without any sources to bear on the notability of the uniforms themselves, this just isn't one of them. —ptk✰fgs 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We do need articles explaining all human knowlege which of course includes Star Trek, Presidency and even GJ 832 (See Encyclopedia). I find your logic flawed. I also do not understand your referance to the mirror universe supposed to mean. Please do not talk in riddles. --Cat out 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The uniforms of Star Trek characters do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Star Trek does; that's not what I'm disputing. Sources showing the uniforms aren't sufficient to establish it. The question here is: "What is significantly notable about the costumes used in Star Trek?" Changing color and design over a period of decades is no big deal. What sets this apart from costuming in other productions? We need reliable sources commenting on this topic first. —ptk✰fgs 16:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I dont follow your logic at all... Same anology applies to the GJ 832, just another Star... --Cat out 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about GJ 832. Why are starfleet uniforms notable? —ptk✰fgs 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct question is "Are starfleet uniforms notable". And the answer to that is "Yes". Notability is a binary concept something is either notable or it is not. --Cat out 19:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a very good article yet, but it clearly can be improved into one. Possibly move to a title like Uniforms in Star Trek or the like, which would make it more clear from the title that it's a reference to Trek. --FOo 21:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The existance of Memory Alpha is in my view prima facia evidence that the topic has enough intrest to keep. Dalf | Talk 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete unless better sourced. The televised appearance of the uniforms is a primary source. If we comment on that, that makes us a secondary source, which is explicitly not the purpose of an encylcopedia. We must be a tertiary source, which means we must cite secondary sources, of which there is only one right now. The fact that this needs better sources is incontrovertible. Powers T 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm wikipedia policy strictly allows me to rely on primary sources and/or secondary sources (It actualy "recommends" primary sources). NOR just means I can't be the primary source (aka I cant invent a new uniform in this case).
    I can use data from the CIA world factbook or US Census office which are primary sources. A secondary source would be CNN revieweing the census.
    --Cat out 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think you are still misunderstanding. An appropriate reference source for an article about the costumes in a television show is an article about the costumes in the television show. Original research is writing that article yourself. Without any sources discussing the uniforms, this is necessarily original research. —ptk✰fgs 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, if you are going to dispute that picard uniforms is red do so, if not dont waiste my time. I will not cite sources for that as my source is the show. On every episode he wore a red coloured uniform at a point.
    Hmm.. So you are saying that if there is no secondary source explicitly stating that US populution had increased, I cant say so; even if the primary source's (US census office) data shows the increase. There is a Wikipedia:Common sense essay. --Cat out 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please reformulate your position without using analogies? It is a waste of time for me to to respond to a position that is built on comparing things that are not related. Starfleet Uniforms does not cite any verifiable sources. It is an article based on direct observation of the topic. That makes it original research. This has nothing to do with the census. This has nothing to do with whether Picard's uniform is red. I would suggest that you start looking for articles discussing uniforms in Star Trek. Your position of "look at the show, look at the uniforms, it's true" is not persuasive. —ptk✰fgs 16:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just watch the show and then dispute anything presented and I am cool with that. Currently you are requiring sources (for stuff that should be common knowlege for anyone watching the show) without disputing anything which is strange to say the least... You (plural) are considering the show itself to be an unnaceptable resource which is not inline with WP:NOR. --Cat out 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop setting up straw men. If the article said "Captain Picard wore a red uniform", you're right; that would be allowed. But 1) the article does not say that—it generalizes to say that all command officers wore red; and 2) it's not encyclopedic without some kind of analysis of how the uniforms changed and why. Perhaps add some commentary on how the various uniforms were criticized or lauded -- but make sure someone else said it, and you reference his (or her) analysis. Powers T 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whois this staw men?
    Yes all command officers wore red. Engineering and security people wore gold. Science officers wore teal/gren/blue (whetever you want to call it). Are you disputing that? Just provide one instance of a command officer not wearing red (including admirals).
    Why did uniforms changed? Now that will require some sort of citation, and for my delight bbcs interview with the uniform designer gives me that.
    Division colors are common knowlege for anyone watching the show. If you are going to dispute anything, do so on the article talk page and argue your reasoning. Or else do not waiste my time. Lots of details can be aquired directly from the show. Also on the DS9 episode with tribbles division colors explicitly mentioned.
    --Cat out 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cool Cat's confirmation that this is textbook WP:OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not recall confirming anything. --Cat out 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Division colors are common knowlege for anyone watching the show" and "The red surgical uniform was worn on a spesific episode for the first time, thats proper citation" and so on, information obtainable only from a primary source. That's original research. Find a book which discusses the subject, or a magazine article; those would be secondary sources and admissible. Relying on primary sources to extend or reference material abstracted from secondary sources would be ok (i.e. you can have the pictures to illustrate what the hypothetical secondary source says). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the circumstances, I dislike to be treated like an idiot. As for the WP:NOR thing, I am sick of making the same response. --Cat out 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concise and reasonable. This doesn't seem excessive at all. And how is it original research to look at something on TV? Imagine if we applied that standard to books. Geesh. Gamaliel 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Shah[edit]

Subject non notable. No significant achievement (like initiating a Water Project, Land Reforms, Building Bridges etc) during the tenure of Mayor have been mentioned to make the subject notableDoctor Bruno 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Mayors of Large Cities pass WP:BIO - This article is a stub is an awful criterion for deletion. WilyD 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I don't know why the user has suddenly nominated 3 Ahmedabad related articles for deletion. Agreed that they are stubs - but they are article on people who govern a city with a population of 5 million. Amit Shah is the mayor of the city. I don't understand how it fails WP:BIO - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know what is wrong with you. Why are you adding afdnewbies tags to these AfDs? Do you expect a host of newbies to suddenly vote one way or the other for these articles you have nominated? - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability for me but could do with expanding. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. -AED 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mayor of a large city is notable. Power over 5 million people is not achieved by sitting idle, or by wasting everyone else's time if you don't win. How much research did you do before nominating the article for deletion? As AED mentioned: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. EyeMD 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Aksi_great and also the fact that the link indicates that the mayoralty is very coveted, as can be seen from the fact that large political parties like the BJP organise the candidate for it. And if the city council does get to do what Doctorbruno says, like water and land reform, builiding bridges, then surely ruling over 5 million people doing this kind of stuff is even more notable than most backbench, junior MPs in the Indian Parliament who are entilted to their article? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Is definitely notable. Seems like a bad-faith nomination due to this. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – nom in bad faith. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I. P. Gautam[edit]

Subject non notable. Is a Bureaucrat and not a politician with no significant achievement Doctor Bruno 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Gautam is the municipal commissioner (head) of Ahmedabad (the 7th largest city of Ahmedabad with a pop of 5 million). Surely he is notable enough per WP:BIO. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely you mean 7th largest city in India?Blnguyen | rant-line 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! is all that I can say!. Yes I meant 7th largest in India. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject has decent press coverage [75] and bureaucrat vs politician isn't an issue - WilyD 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, I am not sure why the AfDnewbies tag was added by the nominator. Since when has it become a practice to add these tags to all AfDs? Some explanation from the nominator would help. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — appears to be notable American Patriot 1776 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. -AED 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that Aksi_great is telling us that he is the chief bureaucrat/manager of a city of 5 million people? If so, he is notable. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 07:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – nom in bad faith. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. Kaushik[edit]

Subject non notable. Is a Bureaucrat and not a politician with no significant achievement Doctor Bruno 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - The subject of the artcle (police commissioner of Ahmedabad) meets requirements of WP:BIO - Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. A google search on K R Kaushik + Ahmedabad will give you hundreds of hits from most of the newspapers of India. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet A police commissioner in a city of 5 million people probably gets lots of press. Does anyone care to research this and flesh it out into a full article? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The article has a lot of scope for expansion like all other articles at Category:Ahmedabad. I am the creator of these articles and maintain most of them. But currently I am busy with Ahmedabad and its FAC which was the reason why these articles were created. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chief of Police in a large city is a notable person. Article is a stub, but that's not a criterion for deletion. It's a criterion for expansion. Bureacrat/Politician is a fine line, and regardless of how much nothing they accomplish, Goveners General are all notable, for example. WilyD 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am curious as to why the {{afdnewbies}} tag was added to this AfD. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's been bugging me as well, especially since it was added before a single comment was made. WilyD 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does seem odd. The only time I'd ever consider adding the tag right off the bat is when nominating an article on a forum, since we know the socks always show up on those. Fan-1967 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a note, though it has never been codified in WP:BIO, there are quite a few police commissioner articles in Wikipedia, and one could probably make a very strong case for systemic bias if this were deleted. I cannot vote keep as this is article has no sourcing, thus fails WP:V (and I've tagged it as such and WP:BIO. I imagine this could probably be sourced rather easily... but should be deleted if it is not.--Isotope23 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have added proper references to the article. It meets WP:V now. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, thanks for sourcing this.--Isotope23 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a reference and dob --RMHED 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The IPS officer is incharge of a large city and thus quite notable. For all of you wondering what's going on with three articles from Ahmedabad being nominated for deletion in one go, and Afdnewbies added to the discussion before even one vote is cast, there is a reason in recent past: the nominator's own article was put up for AfD - have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mariano_Anto_Bruno_Mascarenhas forgot to sign - EyeMD 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - please WP:AGF - there is not need for such alarm at this stage. If indeed true, it is minor at this time and best to let the tension fade away. As you can see there is no danger of the article being deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability requirements. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Per EyeMD, possible bad faith nomination: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -AED 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep top police officer of a large city, where there have been unrest recently.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – nom in bad faith. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The breathing club[edit]

Non-notable band, only 26 hits on Google. JD don't talk email me 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom i kan reed 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still has no claim of notability and fails {{db-band}}. Author removed this tag twice without adding any reason not to. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well, I guess "thousands of fans" is sort of a claim, even if that whole thing sounds like it's ripped from a review of themselves. Still fails notability, even if not speedy. Also, may want to look at Count The Stars, seems like the same band, only they at least put out a record.. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like self-promotion. - Richardcavell 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — just another one of the thousands of non notable garage bands American Patriot 1776 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. Efforts might be made further on the merge, but there is no consensus visible in this one. Yanksox 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism by United States of America[edit]

POV article (created as "flammeable article" by authors) that lists incidents sourced to sites that are hardly neutral (see Consortiumnews.com for instance). After going through this article with an NPOV comb it will leave an almost empty article. This was created imho to push a POV and make a point. Therefor, Delete Kalsermar 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accusing the authors of this article of created as flammable article by authors is not assuming good faith. I did not create this article as flammable article. It was a process of creating individual State terrorism articles by country to better organize State terrorism. No one claimed when I created State terrorism in Syria of creating a flammable article but when it is about the US, hell breaks loose and I become a biased author. Once this is settled, I will keep creating articles on Sudan and Iran, then let's see whether the same accusations are thrown at me RaveenS
Careful RaveenS, Kalsermar will want an apology for you accucing him of not having good faith, but don't hold your breath for him to ever admit he was wrong: it will never happen. It is the unwritten rule on the internet: never admit you are wrong.Travb (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder how many of these wikipedians who are screaming delete because of POV actually attempted to work on this article before putting it up for deletion: answer: none of them. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." (emphasis my own). User:Kalsermar first edit to this article was putting it up for deletion. This not only is not in Good Faith but it is also against the suggested guidelines of the steps to follow before the article should be put up for deletion. Travb (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I requested that this AfD be Speedy closed for two reasons: first, I just merged the article into American Terrorism, as per the existing merge tag, second, the users who voted delete did not follow suggested Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines. Travb (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this as well. The existing name should be just a redirect for the time being. Good merge. rootology (T) 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC) - No longer supporting merge, just Keep per my below original vote. rootology (T) 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your information Travb, I did consider improving it and as I stated, it would have emptied out the article, hence the nomination. This one is so bad it is off the scale and looking at it now it is only getting worse. Also, accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well. The only one that appears to be screaming is yourself, most of us are just discussing things rationally based on the facts. Thank you.--Kalsermar 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out the section. My apologies. The fact remains that the first edit to this page you ever made was a deletion tag. This is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines. I acknowledged my mistake, can you acknowledge yours? Travb (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that and apologies accepted. I acknowledge that I have acted in good faith and took the course of action I thought was required. My only alternative would have been to take out pretty much everything that was there and then nominate it for other reasons. I'm sorry you feel I didn't follow procedure but I did. Besides, they are suggested guidelines, thus not set in stone.--Kalsermar 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." (emphasis my own). Enough said. Obviously only one of us can admit they are wrong. Travb (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." This will be my last comment on this matter. You have obviously not read my response.--Kalsermar 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging that you did not follow wikipedia suggested guidelines. I think this is as close as I will every get to admitting you were wrong. Obviously, acknowledgement of wrongdoing only goes one way. Typical. Travb (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely POV. Wildthing61476 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep take out some POV and it'll be a good article, if enough people work on it. Sparsefarce 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubbify, it's not like it's untrue that the US commits acts of terror overseas. CIA is a dirty tricks agency, if it didn't do anything I'd be very curiously why anyone would spend money on it. 132.205.93.19 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment For everyone's information, here is American terrorism (disambiguation). Tom Harrison Talk 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - wasn't this just up for deletion along with State terrorism in Syria and State terrorism in Sri Lanka? It's spun out of State terrorism due to size - it wasn't created to push a POV or make a point - it's a well referenced article on an encyclopaedic subject. WilyD 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but WOW does this thing ever need work. Whether it's initial purpose was to draw in flames, and despite my own personal distaste for something this POV, honestly, if someone can make a claim, it's probably worthwhile, but this is so POV it's off the radar. - RPIRED 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm ... am I getting a different article from everyone else? This is basically just a sourced list of allegations of State terrorism made against the US ... WilyD 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you read the sources. Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those are singularly disreputable sources. I'm changing my vote; there's nothing to salvage here. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also look at how the sources are used before evaluating the article. Or are anti-American organisations unreliable for everything, even their own allegations? WilyD 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I counted one reputable source. Look, there are plenty of things the US government sponsored at various points, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for quotes. I see two problems: 1) some of the incidents mentioned would not sourced to my satisfaction if I were to convince myself that they happened at all, and 2) other incidents that surely happened are supported only weakly. The best change for this article is a complete rewrite. Failing that, half the sections should be deleted, twice as many added, and sources should be used for everything. If you'd like to salvage the article, why don't you do it now -- it it's done well I'll change my vote, and others may also do so. Until then, I don't see why we're even writing back and forth; the artile's not worth it. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of the sources did you deem 'reputable'? Was it Dr. Ganser of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology? or is it Professor Chomsky of Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Or perhaps you count the rulings of the International Court of Justice? The findings of the Italian Parliament? Statements by the Italian Prime Minister? Resolutions of the European Parliament? I agree that Rober Fisk may be an unreliable source, after all he has won the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year award only seven times.
So, which of these is your one reputable source?Self-Described Seabhcán 08:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are wasting our time. This is all a smoke screen for some wikipedians not liking the subject matter. Wikipedians wrap their own biases in wikipedia policy all the time. This has nothing to do with reputable sources, this has everything to do with peoples own biases. I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians. Travb (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did - are you saying I'm the only one who looked at the context? WilyD 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with RPIRED that with a lot of work, this could be a useful article. It's pretty bad as is. This article is a collection of ill-sourced propaganda. Delete it, and have someone rewrite it from the ground up. Get some legit sources this time. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is not as if the US government does not commit State terrorist actions around the world just like Iran, Syria and others. Second the sources are cited properly. Third this is not POV. It is a statement of fact. Armenian Genocide is POV to most Turkish historians but it is not. State terrorism is a concept that has been critically analyzed and a equilibrium of sorts achieved in Wikipedia. Based on that definition this articles needs to be further developed not deleted. RaveenS 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historians are not saying this, 5 random journalists are. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, first Wikipedia does not say that only Historians are credible sources and second we can find number of historians who say that the United States has committed state terrorism. If that is the test to keep this article then let's find them not delete this article.RaveenS 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats not true? You read the article and seen the sources, there is no historian backing the claims. No court backing the claims either. This is simply 5 journalists views on if those events were acts of terrorism. Again just to point out no country has the United States listed as a state sponsor of terrorism or a terrorist state, not even Cuba. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ReadState Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism (PaperbackRaveenS
Comment Material that is sourced properly might be merged to American terrorism, which admitedly has its own problems. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"No court backing the claims either." Um, please see the new entry about Nicaragua vs the United States. Travb (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stubbify out material that doesn't meet RS, but deletion is overkill, and seems to be based on perception/views of the subject matter--which is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not to be pro-America, it's to be pro-truth, for better or worse. Clean up, stubbify if needed, and after the AfD is closed as a keep then it can be reviewed for applicable data to be merged into another article if need be. rootology (T) 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can we limit this to one government accusing another government of terrorist activity? Gazpacho 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - this article should follow the general form of State terrorism as well as State terrorism in Syria and State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Apart from which, I'm not sure we can reasonably give precedence to the opinions of governments over individuals or other groups given WP:NPOV WilyD 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But put a cleanup tag on it. Where do you think Bin Laden learned to blow things up? See: Afghan Mujahideen --Xrblsnggt 02:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into American terrorism. This article is a POV fork and isn't extensive enough to warrant a separate article.--MONGO 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirct to American terrorism, an article already exists and it would be wrong to have two articles on the same subject. Please make a note of this article editors and re-evaluate your choices. Idleguy 10:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete POV by nature. The incidents can easily be placed in United States of America if they have proper citation. Konman72 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The topic is not POV, and fits a pattern of articles as mentioned by WikyD. The content can be improved - which I have been attempting. I agree with MONGO that it could be merged with American terrorism, but I think that article should be merged to this.Self-Described Seabhcán 11:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Self-Described Seabhcán's argument. --RMHED 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Well-sourced material could easily be merged as indicated by Idleguy above. Other material is clearly NPOV and not fit for inclusion on that basis. Badbilltucker 13:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of what you consider "clearly POV"? Self-Described Seabhcán 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horribly bad POV fork. So 1 individual for each items thinks the acts qualify as state sponsoring of terrorism, or state acts of terrorism, that does not make an encyclopedic article. At least the article got cleaned up, but whats left is 5 people saying 5 different events are examples of state terrorism, are they even able to make such an claim anyway? The article would have to be renamed 5 Journalists Opinions on events they claim are State terrorism by United States of America, I say this because no court or country recognizes the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism or terrorist state, in the world that is. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The governments of Iran, Syria and Venezuela are constantly accusing the US of State Terrorism. See [76] for example, Hugo Chavez said of the US in 2005, "It is difficult, very difficult, to maintain ties with a government that so shamelessly hides and protects international terrorism". Also, in 1989, Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice [77] for their bombing of an Iranian civilian airliner. The US settled out of court, paying $62m. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you hold all the cards does not make that you did not steal them :-))). We have to depend on some sort of evidence when dealing the sole super power. The evidence will always be subject to question but I think we can write a credible encyclopedic article on the subject of state terrorism by the United States of America. Thanks RaveenS 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but even if we think Iran is full of shit, we cannot merely dismiss it as some nutjob just because we happen to be political conservatives or something. I think that's fairly clear under WP:NPOV WilyD 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into American terrorism or else keep. Note that the section on Western Europe is an exact duplicate of text in the NATO article. Based on the references there appears to be some truth to it, although Italian politics has some strong leftist tendencies... so who knows? — RJH (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about merging - I think this article's title is preferable to the ambiguous and vague "American Terrorism". This article's title conforms with a standard wording used for other article's on other nation's. Anyway, the article content deals with terrorist acts carried out by the US government, rather than 'America' as a whole, which to me sounds like a racial slur. I equally would not like to see an article on "Irish Terrorism" or "Jewish Terrorism", however, well sourced NPOV content under the heading "State terrorism by the Republic of Ireland" or "State terrorism by Israel" would be acceptable.Self-Described Seabhcán 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. "American" can be interpreted to apply to the continents as well. So my revised preference would be to merge American Terrorism into State terrorism by United States of America and to keep this article. If nothing else it's a place to consolidate political viewpoints on the issue. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close: Keep or merge Several good articles by simply changing their names simply cease to become firebrands of controversy. I find it interesting that almost every country in the world is listed here: List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state, but some people want to exclude the United States from this list. Travb (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What good article are you refering to, there is 5 journalists stating their opinion and the whole article is based around it. Its not even like they share opinions on items, they are each addressing individual items seperatly, that is barely credible enough in wikipedia standards to denounce an entire country as a terrorist state. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly meets: Wikipedia:Verifiability. I notice that you are one of the authors who has contributed nothing to this article, in violation of suggested guidelies atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion and yet you want it to be deleted. Lets admit it right now, if this article had 10 journalists, it wouldn't matter.Travb (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF your accusations are not only baseless but pointless. Are you telling me I have to contribute to an article in order to say its a POV topic with no possible way to source it because its basically taking the word of 5 journalists? Please keep your accusations to yourself next time. If the article actually had some content and historians calling the incidents state terrorism it would fly, instead it has journalists some in OPed pieces as its reliable sources for stating something historians have not even been ready to state. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well. "Are you telling me I have to contribute to an article in order to say its a POV topic with no possible way to source it because its basically taking the word of 5 journalists" No, I am telling you that you have contributed nothing to this article, just as the person who instigated this deletion, despite the guidelines for deletion. You ignored that this article clearly meets: Wikipedia:Verifiability. How many historians would you like me to find? Give me a reasonable number, I will find this number, then I would like you to change your vote, since you will then have no basis for your vote. You complained about there only being 5 authors, so I asked how many more authors you wanted, you ignored this request, then you raised the bar, now the hurdle is historians. Now I ask you: how many historians do you want me to find? Are you going to ignore this question too? And I have no doubt when I find xxx amount of historians you will then complain that they are not reputable historians. As I mentioned above: I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians. Travb (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here is state terrorism. I don't say that everything the US Government has done is right, but to call it state terrorism is an abuse of the term.--Runcorn 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read State terrorism and let us know which incidents mentioned here does not meet the criteria established thsu far.RaveenS
Define useful sources please, since when did Journalists become useless sources? Is wikipedia now only accepting academic sources. I though that died with Nupedia or are we setting our own rules. Cite WK rules please 216.95.23.178
Ha, ha. I know the type, there is another wikipedian who constantly argues that sources are questionable but yet quotes Commentary Magazine, David Horowitz and Front Page Magazine. Often AfD's are another way for people to push their own POV. I find the people who yell "POV" the loudest are always the biggest POV warriors. Again, User:Carlossuarez46 has contributed nothing to this article, just as all of the other people who voted for delete. Travb (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought, maybe there is nothing to contribute to an article on this subject, just like Finnish colonization of Timbuktu would have nothing useful in it.--Kalsermar 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought, maybe there is nothing that some of you can contribute to this subject because either you don't know about it or biased againt it.RaveenS 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First when this article was created as stub, you wanted it redirected to American terrorism then you went along with the merge request now you want it deleted. Compared to when we started, this is now a better article. RaveenS
Tom, that's nonsense. Of the 13 references in this article, 2 are to commondreams.org, and both of these are mearly hosted archives of articles published elsewhere: in the New York Times and The Independent.Self-Described Seabhcán 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good article about "American terrorism" could be written and maintained. This is not that article; I no longer think merging it into American terrorism will improve the other. I don't think the anecdotes from the sources cited can be combined to mean anything at all, so you'll excuse me if I don't argue that they should not be combined in one place instead of not combined in another. Unless things change a lot, it looks like there is no consensus to delete. I look forward to seeing if this becomes in a few months a companion piece to Operation Gladio. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or the otherway around, Operation Gladio should become a companion to this. Thanks RaveenS
  • Keep If "Criticism of (Religion) xxx" is kept and can be written in an NPOV encyclopedic style, this article can be too. GizzaChat © 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. MaNeMeBasat 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV soapbox. HGB 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I think its well referenced, accurate and NPOV.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please review again. A lot more references to valid sources now exist than when this was nominated. Closing admin: please review based on merits of article under Wikipedia policy, rather than on the nature of the subject matter. rootology (T) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an argument as to why this is a delete because this is not a simple voting process. Thanks RaveenS 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the State Terrorism in_ series. The ruling on Nicuragua, at least, seems like a legitimate source. 65.115.38.32 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. Icewolf34 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent of other "state terrorism by" articles(dictating not being inherently POV) i kan reed 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This entry on the article's talk page by one of the authors is very telling: This is exatly why we created this article so that POV fighters can fight it out in their turf than to muddy and destroy a very vlaubale article on State terrorism User:RaveenS. I've copied it here including bad spelling. Who said npov, reliable and well researched again? Kalsermar 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is not on my intent, it is on the subject matter. I did not hide why I created this article like others, if you are going quote me them quote me fully. This is what I said in the reason for creating this article Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)I fully expected the POV wars and all the mud slinging and also some of you calling the FBI hot line to report me as a potential terrorist subject, but that does not make State terrorism or State terrorism by United States of America or States Terrorism by Syria any more POV. Simply the arguments hide the real biases. Also the original article that I cretaed and the current one are night and day, it has improved hell of lot due to many editors. Surely I will notify some of you when I create the State terrorism by Iran next and hopefully we can carry on this discussion on that AFD page or perhaps may be notRaveenS[reply]
Well, keeping this will no doubt be a good precedent to keep all the others. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or the fact the others were already kept on their own AfDs is a good precedent to keep this one. rootology (T) 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating the Syrian article first was because it is a given, then Sri Lanka because I knew it well and now the US because it is the mother of all articles on this subject matter. If we as a community we can write WP:NPOV article on US state terrorism, that will stand this AFD test then my mission to create others becomes that much easier, if not it will be a tough road ahead. Either way I am on it. Anyway the AFD has made this article that much better compared to what it was earlier. AFD's do improves WP content because of the raw emotions they bring out and it's an out come not forseen by those who nominate them :)RaveenS
Comment While it looks like some of the info may be good, or at least salvagable for other pages, the article title is inherantly POV, and so it should at least be moved. (I would say the same about these other "State terrorism by _" articles someone above says exists) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is POV about the title? that is the topic of the article, whether it's alleged or not. all articles are alleged; some are just better sourced. even if the article just said "nope, never happened", 'state terrorism by X' is the topic. an article about ESP is not called alleged ESP, whether or not you think it exists, because that is the topic of the article. --dan 05:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is POV about this or any article about State terrorism by country XXX ?. State terrorism by Syria is a matter of fact that has been investigated and reported by the UN. If that is POV then Armenian Genocide is POV. RaveenS 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing POV about this title, or State terrorism by Canada, State terrorism by Sweden, State terrorism by Ukraine, State terrorism by Japan, State terrorism by Israel, or State terrorism by India. The "domestic" viewpoint--that is, the 'home' view of the government or local media of that nation--has no role in determining what is considered state terrorism, really. Would domestic Canadian media or government in 99% of cases even refer to it's actions as state terrorism? Or any other nation? Of course not. To call the US article POV and unsalvageable is simply patriotic bluster. I love America, I live here, but if a sanctioned United Nations court said something we did for example is terrorism, guess what? It's terrorism. Editorial/domestic POV has no place in the content or name of an article. Facts are facts--whether they are locally disliked facts are irrelevant, I'm unhappy to admit. The article needs to stay, as do the others from the original forking based on this. rootology (T) 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite my initial reaction, per precedents with other articles. We might be interested in moving all of these to "alleged state terrorism in Fooland," or something to such effect, but that seems to be another discussion. Should remove unsourced material very aggressively, as the article will probably be a magnet for OR. Luna Santin 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV fork --Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good chunk of the sources are definitely suspicious, to say the least, but overall it's a good article that could use some more work. it's much less POV than American terrorism. --dan 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few commentors has said that the sources ar 'suspicious'. MONGO said they were 'radical'. Please, will SOMEONE give an example of ANY source in this article that is in any way unacceptable! It's impossible to improve this article based on vague grumbling. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please just read WP:RS -- you always have this same question. BTW, you have to justify that these are reliable sources, not the other way around -- that's Wikipedia policy. Morton devonshire 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way to twist Seabhcan's words Morty, and avoid the question. No where in the WP:RS does it say that it is up to the editors to justify their reliable sources. Maybe this rule is on the yet to be created WP:Morton devonshire page, but it doesnt exist at WP:RS. Morty is refusing to bring up any concrete examples of suspicious sources, and instead he deletes large portions of the article itself, calling them "disreputable sources", here are the "disreputable sources" which Morty deleted[81]: New York Times, The Independent and The Guardian, among others. As I mentioned above, "I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians." Travb (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the diff you provide, I do see a link to The Guardian; and I see several references to The Times and The Independent, but the links seem to go to:
commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, cambridgeclarion.org, ethlife.ethz.ch, stragi.it, themoscowtimes.com, onlinejournal.com, indymedia.org, babaklayeghi.blogspot.com, poptel.org.uk, chomsky.info, fff.org, Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the NYT article,[82] which was copied word for word from the NYT. (I will correct the link to say NYT), also the Independent link is here, [83] it was on Frisk's page, also word for word from the Independent, but I changed the link.Travb (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, The Independent and the New York Times are subscription sites. That is why I linked instead to free access archives of these articles hosted on commondreams.org, et al. If we link direct to the pay site, I think we should also provide the free links, so people can read these articles for themselves.Self-Described Seabhcán 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is just one more lame excuse, the same lame excuse that is always recycled to mask a person's POV. Travb (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious POV fork. Will always be a hotbed for POV-pushers/America-haters, and can't possibly be neutral as a result. Morton devonshire 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weak argument, using your argument because an article deals with a difficult subject matter such as one pointed out Armenian Genocide then it should be deleted because people will always object to it. Untill the state of Turkey accepts that the Armenian Genocide happened there will be millions of people objecting to it on Wikipedia so we should simply delete the article untill such time may be in 1000 years that Turkey will acept that 11 centuries ago there was a Genocide of Armenian people organized by the then government of Turkey. Are you saying that all such articles should be deleted? Any reasonable person would say no to such an argument then why would you say just because this article will be attracting future American haters this should be deleted. Should article on Zionism be deleted because anti-semitics will always object to it ? I dont think so 216.95.23.157
In regards to "America-haters", name calling is unnecessary and counter productive. Your sentence illustrates that the people who scream POV the most are usually the biggest POV warriors. Don't hide behind the weak facade of "neutrality" for your vote to delete when using such emotionally charged terms as "America-haters" shows your own biases and prejudices. Travb (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morton, Do you have a problem with the articles on State Terrorism by other nations? Also, "america hating" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. rootology (T) 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do not vote here, and try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense. It does not say POV-pushers are America-haters either, they are two groups being talked about. Unless you are assuming there is no such thing as an America hater. Since noone is being targetting in his comment I do not see why you or anyone here would take offense, its almost like taking offense if I say there are racists that participate in the KKK article ... That doesnt mean that all contributors are racists. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense Would one of those people be yourself zero? nice way to call me an "America-hater" in a real subtle way. I am simply advocating that there should be no name calling. Do you support the idea that we should not be calling names here? I have refrained from calling my ideological opposed foes names, and I would appreciate the same respect.Travb (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to act all paranoid then I have no way to talk to you civililly, please refrain from adressing me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for ignoring all of my points, and thank you for reemphasing my main point, by first labeling me an American hater, and then accusing my of incivility and calling me paranoid. I am going to paint you into a corner now. This is a game I play with people who ignore repeated questions which are inconvent. Every single time you respond to one of my messages, I am going to ask you these two simple questions and repeat one statment, which you have ignored and attempted to obsificate (confuse) away: (1) How many historians do you want me to find before this article meets your definiton of WP:RS? (2) How many journalists do you want me to find before this article meets your definiton of WP:RS?? (3) Further, Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well.Travb (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an entirely appropriate article that covers, and will more than likely expand its cover of historical events. It appears that some will accept no evidence of terrorist acts carried out by, or under the encouragement of the government of the United States of America. American Terrorism should be merged into this one; as argued already it has a misleading and non-standard title, but does have information relevant to this article (eg Wounded Knee). - blacksand 10:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From Bookmasters.com Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus Whalen School of the University of Pennsylvania:In his State Terrorism and the United States, Frederick Gareau shows that, contrary to the war on terror imagery of a United States hostile to terrorism and dedicated to its elimination and to democracy-building, this country has regularly supported state terrorists (and dictators) who serve U.S. economic and political interests. Using as his evidentiary base the truth commission reports that have followed the ouster of terror regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina and South Africa, along with a varied array of sources for Indonesia, Israel, Iraq (until August 1990), and Nicaragua, he makes his case for vital U.S. support for these regimes compellingly and soberly. Gareau stresses throughout how little the U.S. public is permitted to hear about what its government has done, which provides a cover for actions the public might well disapprove, and he ends with an appeal for a much needed truth commission for the United States itself. This book is a valuable addition to the literature on terrorism.Frederick Gareau himself is full tenured professor at Florida State University and holds a PhD from Amrican University. 216.95.23.6 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see POV but a collection of relevant information on an important topic; articles of the same nature are deemed justified for other nations. Doubtful cases and conspiracy theory-related stuff were left out. Lots of sources cited. Krankman 14:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: let's not doctor other people's edits, ok? We don't need this to become a DRV fight if it's deleted--Kalsermar, your comment on voting can go on the bottom like everyone else's. rootology (T) 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not doctor the nomination by placing things, highly unusual things I might add, out of context at the top of this page. Let's put it here then. Also, this was I believe an anonymous edit, not a comment at all and something that is not usually placed on AfD's, certainly not at the top of the nominator's text. Kalsermar 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment removed this block of text from the top of the page to where it should have gone.: (Keep: 19, Delete: 12, Merge to American Terrorism: 2 Merge from American Terrorism: 1) 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalsermar (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as part of the "State Terrorism in" series. Good sources. --Credema 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kungfuadam abakharev 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong DELETE Stupid and POV. A waste of server space. Give Peace A Chance 15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should really try to explain your reasoning (and be civil while your at it [84], [85]) Self-Described Seabhcán 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is going to say that "this article is offensive to my American civil religion and ideology, and that is the reason I want this article deleted". Instead, POV warriors commonly drape their biases in wikipedia policy, using wikipedia as a weapon to push their own POV. The really smart and talented wikipedians, regardless of their own POV, "POV diplomats", can actually research and support their POV using reliable sources. Thus far I have seen a lot of POV warriors, but I have yet to see one conservative POV diplomat. It is clear that User:Give Peace A Chance is a conservative, one of the many conservatives who has contributed nothing to the article in question.Travb (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note to all, please review article as it exists today--the sources listed I believe are somewhat different than when this AfD was filed. At best I can personally see just copyediting and structure/form issues of the article now, but it does meet all WP policies (upon which the AfD should be based). Please review the article again and if needed review your keep or delete comments based on Wikipedia policy, rather than personal belief. Thanks! rootology (T) 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. For reference, this is what the article looked like when nominated for deletion (Old Version)Self-Described Seabhcán 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diff link between AfD'd version and the current live version, for those keeping track/score. rootology (T) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, POV fork. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or Keep on the condition of a NPOV rewrite, including new title. You might as well write an article called "What's really wrong with the Catholic Church". However, I oppose deletionism at all times because it disgusts me, I lost one of my favorite articles to it :-) If re-writing is feasible, it's always better than deletion. Karwynn (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you see wrong with the article as it stands? Where is the POV? What needs to be rewritten? Can you suggest a better title? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Karwynn, Amen to that. I agree. I have lost several article to POV warriors. I made a list in my archive. I also agree this article should be renamed, to a less POV term, and a less AfD prone title. This is something I will address after this AfD is behind us. User:Seabhcan, this article does have POV, and it needs to be edited by competent conservatives to give it balance. The Gladio section is suspect, and may not even belong in the article, so is my Naom Chomsky quote. (I thought it was an excellent point, and I did not want to be accused of WP:NOR so I was forced to add the lightning of controvery, Naom Chomsky, who I attempt to not quote directly or at all, if at all possible.) We need competent conservative editors, who know how to research and counter the claims on this page, not POV warriors.Travb (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying its perfect, but it drives me crazy when voters cite 'POV' without explaining what they are refering to. As for the Gladio section, I believe it is the clearest and best documented example in the article. Counter examples are certainly needed, and infact, the Gladio example is probably the best place because although it certainly did exist, there is a case to be made that it was necessary at the time to defend against the greater evil of a soviet invasion.Self-Described Seabhcán 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay. I would say an "accusations of" or "allegations of" in the title would do a lot of good, as in Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials. Additionally, there is little or no refutations of several of these claims. It doesn't represent all sides. But these are problems that should be worked out, not used as an excuse to delete. I say merge because the two articles seem almost identical. Karwynn (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points. Yes, such a name change would be fine by me, if we also rename the other articles on syria, etc. I also agree that the opposing view. I'll try and find sources for them. I think the merge is fine, but I think this article title, or a variation, is better than the vague and slightly insulting "American terrorism". Self-Described Seabhcán 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, about the refutations part. Re: Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials First I do not like the word "allegations" because it is a WP:Weasel Word, and I have actively attempted to delete this personally despised word from wikipedia, along with "claims" etc. "Claims" and "alleged" is a common word of POV warriors, in an attempt to lessen the statments of those who disagree with their own POV. Second we are not discussing war crimes per say, but terrorism, as the dictionary and the US government define it. I simply don't know what word we can replace with "terrorism". I think an alternative to a name change may be a long introduction like American empire. But the word "terrorism" is so politically charged, like the word "imperialism" the word "(terrorism) is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against." Is there a less emotional term we can use for terrorism? Travb (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simultaneous comment - Everyone please remember to assume good faith. Not everyone is as perfect as you ;-) and sometimes mistakes can appear more sinister than they are. Karwynn (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged, sorry Karwynn. I just get really frustrated. I can be a really effective POV diplomat, but after 5 days of the same, my patience wears thin, and I start to fall back to POV warrior. Travb (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Please explain? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is that your stance on the other State terrorism by_ articles? Icewolf34 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Didn't know there was a whole series on state terrorism, so keep it but keep it npov. --Peephole 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Some editors have been advertising this AfD to users they know will vote for deletion [86][87]. (And there has been a bit on the other side too [88]) This is more than a little unfair. I would remind people that this is not a vote, and you must argue the case for keep or deletion.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Dude, look at the diffs you provided -- I asked Peeps to help with the ARTICLE, I didn't mention this Afd. Please stop misrepresenting facts. Morton devonshire 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counternote but you also suggest that the article has problems, which makes visitors more likely to be influenced in the AfD. LinaMishima 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note User has been blocked/warned before against this,and has done it actually on more than one user here, here, and here. rootology (T) 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Counter-Punch : ) -- yes, the article has serious reliable sources problems, and every effort to delete those unreliable sources is met with resistance to Wikipedia policy. Calling that out is not a violation of Wikipedia rules. Trying to intimidate me will not make me stop editing this article. Morton devonshire 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No imtimidation, just putting everything out in the open on all sides. You know I'm almost Pavlovian with this transparency/NPOV stuff. rootology (T) 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to asking others to vote, this is a common tactic, in fact, this is how I found out about this page, by a vote posting on another user's page by User:RaveenS no less.[89] So it looks like we are all guilty of this, including me. I did this three times, as one user stated above. Albiet we liberals and leftist are obviously not as well organized as the "Conservative POV warrior circuit". To my knowledge, not a single person that I asked to vote on this page, actually voted :( And several of the conservative POV warriors have voted to delete, as I mentioned above. I would actually encourage my leftist brothern to ask their friends to vote. I was once warned on my page not to "spam" others, but this was a guy who was a real prick and had it out for me anyway, and obviously ignored in my case how prevelent this behavior is. To my knowledge this is not against wikipolicy. Unlike some users above, I don't hide my actions in lame excuses or by using wikipedia policy as a weapon to push my own POV. Travb (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I posted nothing there. rootology (T) 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I hate when I do that, I meant User:RaveenS Sorry rootology. Here is the edit.[90] My mistake.Travb (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Out of the 34 references I could only count 7 that from the description alone I would wish to investigate. It has many excellent sources, such as internationally renouned newspapers and journalistic groups, international court of justice press releases, books and official documents. I really cannot understand how people are claiming it is misreferenced. As for the POV, allmost all the article is paraphased quotes from the sources, without any true NPOV breaks. Might I remind everyone of the systematic biases and the effects this would obviously have on this AfD? LinaMishima 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep needs more NPOV but it is clearly a worthy article. --Faggotstein 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deleting this article would make wikipedia ever less credible, SqueakBox 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Carfiend 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no strong reason given to delete. Cries of "POV" are unexplained, and seem to conflict with the existence of other articles on this topic (State terrorism by Syria, etc.). POV issues are dealt with in article, not by deletion.--csloat 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posted at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Close_AfD_please to close. Lets move on and start building this article, please? Travb (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Premier Wrestling[edit]

Article for a non-notable wrestling group with no third party references. Google hits for "All Premier Wrestling" = 9. Alexa Traffic for apwaction.com = 2,172,903. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super nintendo: all stars[edit]

Delete. This article is unencyclopedic. --דניאל talk contribs Email 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hmm... there is a game for Super Nintendo called Super Mario All Stars. Name confusion? Medico80 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't seem to be about Super Mario All Stars. First off, it's a fighting game, and note the phrasing: "There'll be a 1 and 2 player campaign..." I think this is somebody's plan to make a fangame or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, it looks like a plan to create a fangame. User's first edit, WP:BITE and all. - RPIRED 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incredibly unfit for encyclopedias of any sort. ReverendG 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not really encyclopedic at all. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does A7 - vanity apply? Unremarkable project unlikely to be any time soon. LinaMishima 05:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Sounds more like a conversation than an encyclopedia entry Konman72 10:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan unless it actually is a game. Bakaman Bakatalk 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact we're left guessing as to what the subject of the article even is doesn't speak well of it. Ace of Sevens 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not encyclopedic, very opinionated, sounds like a plan for a game, OR, could be confused with Super Mario All-Stars, etc. Everything is wrong with this article. I personally think its vandalism. guitarhero777777 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per excellent additions by Satori Son -- Samir धर्म 11:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pray TV (1982 film)[edit]

The article only indicates that it is not the 1980 film, but doesn't have anything to say about this movie itself --T-rex 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The first draft of this article certainly didn't provide the proper assertion of notability, but I after some research I have added links to relevant New York Times coverage. I believe the article now meets standards. --Satori Son 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yomp (board game)[edit]

Looks like advertisment for non-notable product/service. Few google hits seem to direct to this topic.Medico80 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Normally keen on keeping board games, but... advert-stump. "For more info, see [website]" always seems suspicious to me. LinaMishima 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Game created by The Working Knowledge Group, article written by Twkg - vanity article! As such, I believe that Speedy delete under A7 (author/vanity) applies. LinaMishima 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pimproll[edit]

Advert for porn website "includes 100's of paysites that webmasters can advertise for. They can earn either a total sale per join or a percentage from each re-billing." Mattisse(talk) 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'80s DOS Games[edit]

A tiny download site that fails WP:WEB. --Gavia immer 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an article for every single Abandonware site unless it has made a significant contribution to the growth of Abandonware such as Home of the Underdogs

>>>Fair enough, I'll remake the page once the site holds a large amount of games.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I0010 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 August 2006

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Raven_(magic_trick)[edit]

Prod removed, so I'm listing it here. I'm unsure of precedent regarding magic tricks, but I don't see any evidence that this trick is notable, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The article HAS been cleaned up since I prodded it, but I still don't think it passes notability tests. --Darksun 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a how to. Add it to List of magic tricks, unless it was already there and disappeared. :) Or, seriously, does anyone know if there is a MagicWiki? It could go there, but not in an encyclopedia. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources cited. I haven't found any either. Wickethewok 07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is a whole category of Magic tricks. Do what you will. Outriggr 07:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there is a category of articles on magic tricks is no justification for including articles that are unverifiable. Wickethewok has asserted that the article is unverifiable, with the article citing no sources and no sources locatable. Your sole counterargument is to make the article verifiable. Please cite sources. Uncle G 10:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G4). OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification On The Unsubstantiated Rumors Surrounding The Inter City Posse[edit]

File this under "articles that you wish you could speedily delete but technically can't"; Prod tag removed without comment; POV, original research OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - so .... many .... reasons .... rushing .... over .... me .... I mean, fails WP:OR and almost any other policy that exists or will ever exist. WilyD 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, support the WP:OR failure. Plus, who is ever going to search that title?--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as repost, so tagged, AFD'd under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP; author keeps recreating it under different names. NawlinWiki 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the title alone (ICP hasn't been known as Inner City Posse in over a decade), but WP:OR works too, and... pretty much everything else. - RPIRED 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. YaR GnitS is banned for sockpuppetry and started Gay ICP, etc. YaR GnitS Y created this. Coincidence? I think not. - RPIRED 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like the article's already deleted (and the namespace salted). I'm guessing the discussion should be closed now? —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solo girl[edit]

WP:NEO -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2,548 best things anyone aever said[edit]

Non-notable, possible copyvio, horrible name. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REGGAE ON THE RIVER[edit]

Non-notable festival, listed a location with no state. No claims of notability. Prod and speedy removed by author. Wildthing61476 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juice-Beer rivalry[edit]

At worst, this appears to be simply WP:NEO, which would necessitate a simple redirect to Astros-Cardinals rivalry. I can't find any reference to "Juice-Beer rivalry" that didn't stem from Wikipedia. However, as pointed out in the talk page, this doesn't appear to be a significant rivalry other than the fact that the two teams have both enjoyed recent success. At any rate it doesn't warrant its own page on Wikipedia. - RPIRED 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The rivalry is real because these two teams have dominated the division back into the 90's when the divisions were realigned. The name is ridiculous, unsourced, unverified, and perilously close to WP:NFT. The rivalry extends back to when the Astros were still in the dome. Minute Maid Park didn't get that name until 2002 after the Enron collapse. Fan-1967 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been a Cardinals fan forever and have never head this term used. --Kbh3rdtalk 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a neologism, but some of the content can be saved. Merge into Astros-Cardinals rivalry -- which is currently a redirect to Juice-Beer rivalry. -- 65.75.19.56 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jjoco model agency[edit]

Advert for modeling agency. Mattisse(talk) 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it fails WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um.. how about the other agencies? THATS not advertìsing you think? Please explain the difference (if any) :)
  • Delete - This is an advertisement. - Richardcavell 00:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising service. (If there are more agencies, delete them too.) --Xrblsnggt 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is pretty much advertising for something.. even if it's about a contry, right? Then it has to be somehing els that makes it legitimit to be in Wikipedia, could it be the fact that it actually exists and that a encyclopedia should (as far as im concerned) keep articels about facts. I mean come on, just beacuse there is an article about coca cola (witch is advertisng!) it should be keept. Am I wrong to say that wikipedia actully should have a wide spread of articles about just anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.146.150 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - Yes you are. To be included in Wikipedia, an article must show that a company meets WP:CORP. All articles (people, products, places, events, etc.) must meet WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Mattisse(talk) 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means, c u later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.146.150 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hornet Mafia[edit]

Delete as Non-notable neologism. In fact, article asserts its non-notability in its nonexistence in any Reliable Sources. WP:V violations by its own admission in use of newsgroups, blog comments, and other unverifiable sources to prop up original research, WP:OR violation as none of the sources support any of the statements contained herein. Definition of "hornet mafia" is not given and constitutes WP:OR. 34 unique hits on google, all forums or blog comments. No Lexis-Nexis nor Proquest nor Google Scholar[91] results. I am wondering if it is possible to CSD this on its assertion of non-notability. Ah, unfortuantely non-assertion of notability only applies to people and groups. Mmx1 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does not violate WP:OR. The term exists in cyberspace
  • Does not violate WP:V. Google search proves the term exists and is widely used
  • Only used newsgroup sources to prove existence of term, since this is the ONLY space where it exists, as is explained by the article. Newsgroups are not good enough to prove whether the Hornet Mafia in fact exists, but certainly does prove the term and its usage exists.
  • Numa Numa is an example of a phenomenon that did not exist in any "reliable" source, but nevertheless is worthy of noting because it existed, even if only in cyberspace. Not everything has to be in the Encyclopedia Brittanica to be a valid, verifiable article.
  • Anti-semitism and racism are points of view, this however does not prevent documenting a term for this point of view.
  • Does not meet any of the criterion below for an article needing to be deleted.
  • Therefore does not meet --matador300 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: table deleted and moved to talk. Cite by reference, not inclusion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the poster above who posted the large table and the like seems to have forgotten the notability guidelines. Just because something isn't OR and is verifiable does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neoligism or jargon. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Very relevant to F-14 history --matador300 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for explanations of every obscure term that can be found on the Internet. This article simply seems to be a soapbox for advocacy of a specific airplane. See WP:NOT Dabarkey 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is not a single person named as a part of this supposed group. Forums are not sources for an encyclopedia. Dual Freq 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn -- Samir धर्म 11:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman Johnson[edit]

autobiography; many parts unverifiable or false; non-notable if false claims removed. Author removed prod and responded that claims were true, but has failed (so far) to verify important content. The subject appears to be a young man in the Jacksonville, Florida area who was verifiably a member of a local soil conservation district board, where he was accused of misusing funds. He later launched a campaign for City Council, abandoned that, and ran for state legislature unsuccessfully. He is a member of a local environmental advisory board, an appointive position. Various claims in the article are difficult or impossible to verify; as far as I can tell, there is no show named "Splat" on Nickelodeon, now or in the recent past. One random not-very-reliable-looking list online claims it was a one-shot game show (with Rahman as host), which is very different from the claim in the article. A local Jacksonville source lists an appearance by Rahman and that he is the host of Splat - but why only one such online source, and in his home town? The "Telly Award" appears to be somewhat of a scam; you pay to enter, you pay for the statues - here is the page listing Build Your Future as a winner, and notice that the long list is only some of the winners starting with the letter 's', for 2005! I don't think there is an ABC series named "Sheena!" He is not listed among the cast members of "Full Time Felon", even among the minor cast members. Etc. Etc. I have been unable to verify the claim about the listing in Ebony; various local media have different stories: in some, the claim is that he was named one of Jacksonville's upcoming black leaders; in others one of Florida's upcoming black leaders; and in some 'one of 30 upcoming black leaders'. And so on.... Sorry for the long entry, but there are a lot of claims, and the article seems to be a complex mixture of exaggeration, truth, and probable lies. --Brianyoumans 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to article history, the user seems to be a bit uncooperative, not taking a hint. Not sure if it is a hoax or just vanity. Don't think he should be given the benefit of doubt. Medico80 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Searching IMDB gives exactly 0 hits for "Rahman Johnson". You would think the "flagship" show on Nickelodeon would not only be on IMDB, but the "star" of this show would be on there. Searching Nick.com also gives no hits for Rahman Johnson. Hoax and warn the author. Wildthing61476 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Jacksonville and have some info on Johnson, so I will assist with the editing of this page.Many of the claims are exaggerated, but some are factual. This young man is quite controversial. Good reading promised.User:Tajomari

  • strong delete fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO or alternatively WP:CP. He has posted exactly the same non-verifiable bio in zoominfo. Also I do not find him particularly notable despite his efforts. 230Ghits, shared with Abdul Azeez Rahman-Johnson. IT seems he is a small-time embezzeler, as has been published in the Jacksonville's Financial News and Daily Record, but also apparently voted top 30 wannabe by Ebony magazine (cannot search ebony), he's trying to use wiki to propagate his padded bio. fire him quicklyOhconfucius 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is apparently vanity and autobigraphy. However, Variety reported on the existence of "Splat" as a program hosted by Johnson. [92] (registration may be required). Another article in the Boca Raton News [93] confirms that and says "Splat" was an interstitial program (which might explain why it does not show up on regular schedules) and hosted by Johnson. The "random not-very-reliable-looking list" is not a list of game shows that produced only one episode, but a list of game show hosts who only hosted one game show. (Example: Louie Anderson, who is on the list, has hosted Family Feud and no other game shows, but he hosted Family Feud for several years.) Maybe this should still be a delete due to insufficient verification among other reasons, but let's consider this a little. --Metropolitan90 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gee, that looks pretty legit. I don't know why I couldn't find any references online to this stuff; I thought I had looked pretty hard. I guess, being an "interstitial" show, Nick doesn't do much promotion for it. Brianyoumans 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have located verification on topics mentioned to correct page. Subject is a political figure in Jacksonville and did host the Nickelodeon show Splat! User:Tajomari

  • I would like to withdraw this nomination; the subject does appear to be notable, although the article badly needs to be rewritten and contains a good deal of misleading material. (Though perhaps not worse than your average resume...) Hopefully User:Tajomari and I can rewrite the entry and improve it considerably. Brianyoumans 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I stand by my vote. Medico80 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete One "keep" vote is disqualified: new Quill E. Coyote (talk · contribs). For those who believe the person is notable: the article may be recreated if reputable sources will be provided that demonstrate person's notoriety. `'mikka (t) 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bonomo[edit]

Non-notable, unsourced, non-WP:BLP compliant, vandalized with trivia... the article has just about every reason that it should not be an article. 2005 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no google news hits. Fails WP:V. Recury 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be Google News hits? Justin being outed for cheating happened a while ago, and Google News only returns recent articles. There are still plenty of news articles and other sources which provide verifiability. Quill E. Coyote 09:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching for his name brings up plenty of imformation about the guy, even one from BusinessWeek. Almost every poker site out there has a mention of him having been charged with cheating, the guy even admits it.[94] That fact that it gets vandalized is not a reason for deletion. DrunkenSmurf 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The business week link mentions only that he plays online, something 200,000 people will do today. Two years before his cheating incident he just happened to be mentioned in the article, not because he was "somebody". Being caught cheating in poker is something that will happen to a few dozen people today. Being public about being caught does not suddenly make this run of the mill activity notable. If it did, the article should be one sentence about his cheating, with a reference to where he allegedly admits it. Not one other aspect of this person merits mention in an article. 2005 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, the business week quote is merely an accident. Cheating is hardly notable, even if admitting it it is. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some people don't seem to realize just how big a story this was in the poker world. Justin was widely regarded as one of the best online poker plays in the world, and so his getting outed for cheating was a major event. It was published in many poker news sources, and garnered one of the largest threads ever in Two_Plus_Two_Publishing's forums. It might not have been notable to most Wikipedians, but it certainly was notable to poker. If there are problems with vandalism and sources, fix them, but not with {{subst:afd}}. Quill E. Coyote 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling it a big story is a major exaggeration. Sure, the teenagers on some forums obsessed over it, but the reality is that it was just common cheating. Regardless of how big or little that incident was though, he has no WP:BLP compliant notability. 2005 09:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read WP:BLP? It mentions notability several times, but I don't see where it suggests Justin isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The first mention says that we can use an article's subject as a source. All this means is that we can use Justin's website for information on his notable cheating and success at poker. The second mention talks about using public records such as court filings as sources, and since none are used in this article, I don't see how that relates. The third says that we must show restraint in what sources we use and what information we publish about non-public figures. We meet that standard, and whether or not Justin is a public figure is questionable, since he has attempted to create and market the 'Zeejustin' brand. The third mention talks about dates of birth, but we don't include Justin's birthdate, even though it's fairly well known. The fourth talks about malicious editing. I'm not familiar enough with this article's history to know if it's been edited maliciously, but if there was, there are better ways to deal with it than deleting the article. The fourth mention talks about using critics as sources, but I don't think we used any for this article. What is there in WP:BLP that suggests we shouldn't have an article about Justin?
I'm not sure why the age of the people who cared about this matters. Should we delete Teletubbies and Pokemon? Most of the people who care about those things are probably even younger than those who care about poker. If it helps, most of the people who care about this were probably out of their teenage years, since playing poker online and in most cardrooms is restricted to people above a certain age. Quill E. Coyote 09:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have even shorter articles of even less notable television soap opera actors. This article has the potential to be a great source of facts. Vivelequebeclibre 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No reputable verification provided. `'mikka (t) 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catman Cohen[edit]

Musician with two self-released albums; no info on his real name, birthdate, or birthplace; 181 unique Ghits; article creator blocked for threatening legal action if any edits were made to the page. NawlinWiki 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. --Merovingian - Talk 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Menglin[edit]

Non-notable. No assertion of notability. Sparsefarce 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Well NOW they say he was minister of education. That wasn't in it when i put it up here. should we keep the vote going or stop it? I wouldn't have nominated it if that was on there earlier
  • Comment If we delete this, then we should delete a great deal of academic bios, which would be fine with me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just say that you withdraw your nomination and someone will come by and close it, if you want. Recury 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If being Minister of Education for one year in the 20's is enough to be notable for most people, then i withdraw.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portage trail aza[edit]

In addition to the serious POV and verification issues, this is essentially a non-encyclopedic article about a non-notable local club that could probably be tagged with a speedy delete. However, out of an abundance of caution, I'll nominate it for discussion instead. Agent 86 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local club that is non-notable outside of the scope of its parent organization(s); no evidence of meeting WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EZ Scores[edit]

Advertisment for up to the minute sports scores service Mattisse(talk) 20:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I prodded it initially and the creator deprodded it without making any substantive changes. It's just promotion. Richardjames444 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EZ Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Be sure to let the website know, I'm sure someone is waiting for the box score for how long this lasts. I just hope it covers the spread. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

51QB[edit]

Article doesn't meet WP:NOT

  • Delete for the lack of any evidence that this company meets WP:CORP, with the assumption that it might be WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it's something other than self-promotion. - Richardcavell 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. --Xrblsnggt 02:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a shell now, but potential to become full blown WP:VSCA. Love that the link to Red Herring goes to a page which contains "a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments" — MrDolomite | Talk 04:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Ship by David Leman[edit]

non-notable software by non-notable person. Possible vanity page, as the article was created by User:Davidleman56 and this is his only edit. "Pirate Ship" and "David Leman" garners 16 ghits. Agent 86 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British porn film directors[edit]

This is a dual nomination; both this article and Mike Freeman appear to be about the same person. Both describe a non-notable porn director, who fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. I couldn't find either him or his "famous" 1983 film in IMDB or IAFD, so WP:V, possible WP:HOAX.

  • comment bundled nomination was incomplete. I have now attached AfD tag to the Freeman page. Ohconfucius
  • strong delete per WP:VAIN or WP:SPAM. I doubt if British porn directors merits a page, especially if it's all about one person setting out to publicise jhis own activities. Hwever, a category might (and I just say "might") be justified. "Truth or dare" scores 1.2 million ghits, mostly for being a party game or a Madonna film. No sign of the alleged movie directed by him per Google. As to Mike Freeman, it seems like quite a common name, but only 170,000 Ghits. quite a few for sportswriter, doctor, and actor in 1968 movie 'The Killing of Sister George', but none for this particular one. Being named "erotic film director of the year 1982 by Tuppy Owens the radical sex worker" does not make him notable per WP:NN. Nor does being imprisoned under the Obscene publications act, I'm afraid. However, according to a search in BGAFD, he has made tens of movies, but 'Truth or dare' is not credited to him. I am leaning toweards a weak keep for Freeman. Ohconfucius 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per arguments, no evidence of meeting WP:NMG -- Samir धर्म

Even Sh'siyah[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, still much OR in the article, and was not swayed by comparisons to other misconception articles, that are grounded with good references. -- Samir धर्म 11:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Misconceptions[edit]

I prod'd. prod was removed without explanation. afd for being inherently NPOV, poorly formatted, unverifiable, unsourced, and a few things under WP:NOT i kan reed 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research. Very original. Medico80 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent WP:OR, the picture may be a copyvio nope, it's just an MS Paint job. --Kinu t/c 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomintation and WP:OR - there may even be copyright issues around the chart.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a most important concept in chemistry education and a good article could be written about it. This was only started today. I think it should be given time. Also it is'nt OR. It is talking about things that are well developed in the literature of chemical education. It just is'nt doing it well, so far, and it is'nt citing the literature. The picture may indeed be a MS paint job, but it might still be a copy from an article in the education literature. --Bduke 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How could such an article possibly be verifiable? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How students have misconceptions about chemistry is a significant part of research in chemical education, a field of study that has grown significantly in the last few years. The article can be verified by reference to this published research like any article on any kind of research. Why do you think it is a problem? Indeed I was partly wrong above. The article does have references to articles including to two in the Journal of Chemical Education. That journal often has articles about research on the misconceptions that chemistry students have.--Bduke 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Similar entire books have been written about various sciences, math etc. Enormous amounts of research to draw on. Very verifiable and worthwhile subject. Fg2 00:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. The title does not in itself mean it is an automatic delete (see Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS which has survived at least one AfD), but it has no references which does for it. Poor formatting isn't a criterion for deletion by the way. Yomangani 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the three references the article does have. They report research on student misconceptions of chemistry. At least I think they do, and if they do not they can be replaced by references that do. There is a large body of publications about this. Why is it OR? --Bduke 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, the references were added after I looked at it, but before I commented. It is still not written from a neutral point of view though (although this may be a generic problem with "Misconceptions of..." articles), so I can only change to a weak delete. Yomangani 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Could I make the point that this article should not be like "Misconceptions about HIV" or similar. It should be discussing the large body of educational research that studies the ways students have misconceptions about the material they are taught that gets in the way of them learning. It should be one of several sub-articles for chemistry education as one of the major sub-divisions of that research area. --Bduke 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Author

I appreciate everyone's comments. I am a pre-service teacher completing an assignment for my Science Methods in Education class. Originally, I did not include my references (this was a mistake that I quickly corrected). As for the chart, it is my own summary of work from several sources. Granted, the visual quality is poor becuase I saved it from a MS Word document as a GIF (couldn't think think of a better way, but I really wanted to preserve the style which nicely contrasts accepted and alternative conceptions in chemistry) If I have read the OR Wiki correctly then it does not fit as Original Research. The purpose of this articles was to add to the limited base of knowledge available to the general public and hopefully other teachers. Suggestions are welcome, thanks !!!

  • Keep. Encyclopedic topic, and it has actual reliable sources, which is more that can be said about most articles on AfD. Needs cleanup, obviously. My suggestion: drop the chart and use the text as part of the article, so that people can edit it. Sandstein 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Spawn Project (film)[edit]

No confirmed information exists on IMDb or any other film site ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Mako 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, no WP:RS indicating this project is happening. --Kinu t/c 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 12:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sister (brothel)[edit]

Advert for brothel Mattisse(talk) 21:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article describes a brothel; a mere description may occasionally also have an advertising effect, but that is hard to avoid and at any rate not a valid reason for deletion. The brothel is notable because of its novel business model, reflected by the fact that it was covered by some 40 European newspapers and TV stations (linked on the page). AxelBoldt 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not encyclopedic. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please provide a pointer to a guideline defining the term "encyclopedic" so that your claim can be independently verified. At least the German Wikipedia apparently considers the topic encyclopedic. AxelBoldt 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come off it. The comment was entirely legitimate. This page is about opinions, and if his opinion differed from yours that is tough. Piccadilly 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would hope this page is about arguments, not opinions, and name calling is not an argument. AxelBoldt 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply To be included in Wikipedia, you must show that a company meets WP:CORP and a product meets WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Mattisse(talk) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Precisely which of those do you claim is violated? I already established WP:CORP point 1 and WP:V above. AxelBoldt 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - How? Your say-so is not enough. You have to have multiple references from third-party, verifiable, unbiased sources linked to the article. Link some articles from those 40 reputable newspapers or TV webpages you mention to the article and then it will be fine. See Fun Home for an example of what a well-referenced article looks like. Mattisse(talk) 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the description of a unique concept and needs to stay. -- Michael Janich 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, User:Koavf; uniqueness is not a criterion, and article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB, WP:CORP. Valrith 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:CORP does not require that the article establish notability, only that the described company be notable. Notability of the company is established beyond question by some 40 media reports in German, English, French, Russian, Czech and Italian, including reports by the biggest German newspaper (Bild), the biggest Swiss newspaper (Blick) and the three biggest German TV stations (ARD, RTL, SAT1). These involve original reporting and are not mere rehashings of press releases ([95], also listed under external links). I'll add a mention of this to the article. AxelBoldt 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The links 'listed under external links' point exclusively to urls within nightclublive.net, most of which contain images of articles and not actual articles. However, the criterion specifically states "multiple non-trivial published works" and I would argue that these are all trivial. Valrith 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per WP:CORP 'The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.' this includes 'This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.' Vegaswikian 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I would argue that these are all trivial" -- well, then let's hear your argument: why are they all trivial? WP:CORP gives as the only example of trivial articles "newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." AxelBoldt 07:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This certainly serves an advertising purpose, and as a business it is much too insignificant. Piccadilly 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see the true significance of this concept in that it represents a novel convergence of the real world and the internet, of prostitution and pornography. I'm sure this will show up in Nevada before long. AxelBoldt 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable because of the unique concept. If the article sounds too much like an advert, then fix it. PseudoAnon 08:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Belgian urban violence[edit]

the page in its entirety is Original Research LucVerhelst 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : On reviewing this article, I have come to the conclusion that it should be considered to be Original Research.

A Wikipedia article on crime in a certain country and/or a certain period should base itself on criminology studies, or news articles giving an overview about crime. In this case, press articles on individual crimes must be considered primary sources, that should be analysed and synthesised, and upon which conclusions should be drawn. This analysis, this synthesis, these conclusions are original research. Wikipedia is no place for that. --LucVerhelst 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The whole "2005 CountryX urban violence" series stinks. Most of the events are barely notable nor connected. Medico80 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or redirect to the article about the French violence, an attempt to appropriate reflected glory, or whatever. Original research, and non-notable. Jdcooper 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per all three comments above. --Edcolins 07:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta source[edit]

Non-notable, unencyclopedic. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please help the article by formatting it to make it "encyclopedic", instead of just opting to delete it. -User:Vote Pi
    • Comment What I'm saying is this will never be encyclopedic, by necessity. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would do better to explain why it is unencyclopaedic. Explain what part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not applies, and why. A bad nomination just contains bare assertions that the article is non-notable or unencyclopaedic, with no explanation whatsoever and expecting editors to just guess what the nominator's rationale is. A good nomination points to the notability criteria being applied, explains why the article satisfies none of them, and explains how the "unencyclopaedic" article violates one of our Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, or What Wikipedia is not official policies. Uncle G 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable mod that is still in development, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kinu.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 03:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 03:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only notable mods should be listed and it's a rare mod that can be notable before release. Ace of Sevens 22:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This nomination and the one below are the users first and only contributions to Wikipedia (Mod176 (talk · contribs · count)), and leads me to believe its a bad faith nom and/or possible attack. If any admin thinks I am wrong, you are more than welcome to overturn and delete. SynergeticMaggot 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen_Greenfield[edit]

Vanity Article Mod176 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The guy appears to be a fairly well-known occultist. Article sure needs a lot of cleanup, though. NawlinWiki 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Nawlin. Although, are we sure this article isn't a copyvio?--NMajdan•talk 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean like being lifted word-for-word from here? -- Fan-1967 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence, a vanity post.Mod176 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mod176 LactoseTI 23:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. article unreferenced. However as alternative: tidy and remove NPOV style and reference up Ohconfucius 03:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Subject is a published author, a Gnostic Bishop, and fairly well known in his field. -999 (Talk) 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then someone else can write an article about him. This is an autobiographical entry (see WP:AUTO). Wiki is not for tooting your own horn. He already has a web page for that.Mod176 20:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per 999. —Hanuman Das 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP ME - This article is about me. Much of it is, admittedly and candidly, too personal, from my publisher's web site, tracing back to my own organization's site, up on the nef for more than ten years. The Bibliography is something I wrote for the information of Wikipediareaders. It is entirely factual. For the record, a casual scan of Google or Amazon.com will show that I am a rather well-known and controversial author on occultism, UFOs and similar subjects. I have repeatedly asked associates to clean the piece up technically (I do not have the skill) and to revise it to include critical material from various points of view. It is not a "vanity" piece by any standard of self-promotion in any sense, though I am gratified that there is an entry about me, I think *an* entry is merited, and I myself am much in favor of including some critical study as well as a healthy clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allengreenfield (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I have known Allen Greenfield personally for 13 or more years and I attest that the information in this article is accurate. That said, it is also a tad spun and needs to be cleaned up. I am looking into doing some edits. tau peristera 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - published author. Ekajati 16:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This nomination and the one above are the users first and only contributions to Wikipedia (Mod176 (talk • contribs • count)), and leads me to believe its a bad faith nom and/or possible attack. If any admin thinks I am wrong, you are more than welcome to overturn and delete. SynergeticMaggot 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald del Campo[edit]

Vanity Article Mod176 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus Cleanup and expand tags added -- Samir धर्म 11:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulton's Park[edit]

This article is no more than a promotion for the park, and an uninformative one at that. It contains no lead or otherwise section explaining what the park is and just consists of a few short descriptions of rides, including some empty sections. --Mark (Talk | Contribs | Email) 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It however requires a rewrite, but certainly don't delete! Y control 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional page. Ekajati 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The essential fact is that software that merits inclusion in the historical encyclopaedic record is in the extreme minority... and neither third-party sourcing nor strong argument indicates that this software is outside the minority. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSentry[edit]

Article started by User:Wikrockstone and read strongly as an advertisement. Was prodded and prod2ed as an advertisement for a non-notable piece of software (Google returns only 56 unique results for PSentry plus ("Plus" as in "Plus Communications", the developer), or 61 for PSentry filter). The article was since rewritten to be more neutral in tone by User:Idealistic cynic and the prods removed, but this does not address the notability issue. ~Matticus TC 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I mistaked the article's discussion page for this one. I take mild offense at the fact that you would insinuate I deleted comments from here or that my removal of the page was vandalism as it's obvious by the discussion page at PSentry that I was attempting to discuss the issue at hand.
PSentry is somewhat notable in the Corporate and specifically the Corporate Security sectors as being a more indepth piece of security software, both in network blocking and in logging capabilities than Websense. Just because it doesn't show up in a "google" doesn't mean it isn't notable. Due to the nature of this product, it was marketed directly to my CMO, and he passed it down the line to me. I get the suspicion that this is how it's generally used and thus its web presence is de-emphasized as you've seen in your google results. --Idealistic cynic 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ah, a second note, sorry about that. I've now fully read up on the policy, I had yet to learn that AfD's should stay up for 5 days or that they had their own specific discussion pages. I apologize for removing it, but as the saying goes, don't attribute to malice what could more easily be attributed to ignorance. Well, that's not the saying, but it makes me seem a little better ;).
I don't really see this piece of software as being any less notable than say...Bleach_(anime) or any number of other articles here on wikipedia. It applies to a very specific subset and Wikipedia is known for covering even the most trivial details extensively. If there's any doubt there, check the almost complete episode guide with detailed description for every single episode of the Simpsons, Family Guy, or Futurama among others.
This doesn't appear to be that much different than those examples, or many of the hundreds of other examples here on Wikipedia. I can tell you if this page had been around when my CMO asked me about "some PSentry product" it'd have made things a hell of a lot easier for me as a network manager and for anyone involved in the corresponding meeting where we discussed our filtering solutions.
Finally, I don't really see non-notability mentioned on the articles for deletion, but as I said in my previous post this isn't the type of software that's even heavily known about. It doesn't produce websense pages, it just produces blank pages and logs large amounts of content. Hope that helps. -- Idealistic cynic 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the standard "don't remove AfD tags" template, and the wording is not always ideal. I meant no offense by it.
Wikipedia has guidelines on the notability of software at WP:SOFTWARE, though I should emphasise that these are currently proposed guidelines only, not yet official policy. The alarm bell with this article was rung by how it started off reading strongly as an advertisement and was created by a user new to Wikipedia, which is often a sign of someone signing up with the sole purpose of promoting their own/their company's product/service. The article has been improved since, as stated the my opening rationale, but I decided to go ahead with an AfD to obtain the community's opinion.
As an IT professional myself I am familiar with a number of internet content filtering packages intended for corporate networks. The "Google test" is not the definitive test of notability in all areas, but in IT-related subjects it has proven itself a useful guide at the very least. Googling for Censornet (another corporate filter) returns 281,000 hits, Surfcontrol (another) over 1.5million, and Websense (yet another) over 4million, while PSentry returns 1,170 (with a number of obviously unrelated pages on programming in the first page of results).
Putting ascertaining the notability aside, the other problem with the article, I feel, is in finding third-party verification of the facts therein (the all-important "multiple non-trivial published works"); a critically important factor in any Wikipedia article regardless of the subject. There is a stronger case for keeping the article if third-party reviews of this product can be found and cited (by which I mean an independent critical review - the paragraph on CNet is just the publisher's blurb). ~Matticus TC 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't really believe that there's too strong of a case for deleting the article wholly, in all honesty. I think the sources could use a bit of work, but we've got a category specifically made to deal with that particular problem. By mention of the google test, I meant to say that google isn't always an adequate test for notability within some domains. I work for a Fortune 500 company where software like this is often promoted and this particular package isn't exactly unheard of around here. Granted, this is a US Company and this is a US Product so that could explain why you've yet to read or hear too much about it being in the UK.
I think your concerns about spam and marketing were originally valid, and I have had to deal with a slight bit of vandalism in that regards already, but I don't believe the page itself is without merits. In addition, if it's a marketing move it may not be a particular good one as the types of people that can purchase contracts like these don't exactly look at Wikipedia for their product decisions. I've added the page to my watchlist just incase to ensure that no further vandals can get at the page, but it could have been a misinformed user as well. It's difficult to know exactly how to label someone when all you have from them are direct edits with no context.
To sum up this long winded response: It's my personal opinion that we should mark the page with "verify sources" and let it go from there. The page certainly contains at least a bit of merit, and we should be wary of making the barrier of entry for new pages to even exist too high. Otherwise, we may stand to lose what could be beneficial contributors over small issues that could be dealt with before deletion was ever required. --Idealistic cynic 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair course of action. I suggest letting the AfD run its course to gauge some other people's opinions (after all, it's just thee and me who've commented on this so far) and see what to do from there. Thank you for your well-reasoned input to the debate. ~Matticus TC 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you as well. I wish to apologize for my original harsh reprisal. I'm still learning the ropes here. -- Idealistic cynic 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an Admin?[edit]

It's been a week exacctly since this article was put into AfD. Matticus and I have both discussed the merits and flaws of the article and come to the consensus that it should be kept but with a sources needed tag. No other contributors have really chipped in and the article appears to have stabilized across edits.

I'll still be keeping it on my watchlist for the next couple of months just to ensure there isn't any future vandalism or marketing hype. Thanks. --Idealistic cynic 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication of notability, 145 unique google hits, which is horrible for software. Only external links in the article are to a download site, where pretty much anyone can post their software. The arguments here for keeping it aren't concerned with the software's merits but with "making the barrier of entry for new pages to even exist too high", which is not afd's concern. - Bobet 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamvert, non-notable to boot. Ifnord 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro Wong[edit]

Delete nn poker player bio. Essexmutant 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus. Yanksox 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ulwick[edit]

This is recreated article deleted July 23, 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ulwick. It's an advert for book and business. Links on site go to Wikipedia articles, not Harvard Review. Company link only outside link. Mattisse(talk) 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article was not deleted and recreated, the previous nomination ended in no consensus. It was speedily deleted yesterday, which I reverted, since an article which has been discussed on AfD and survived is clearly not a speedy delete candidate. --Stormie 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I genuinely don't see anything at WP:CSD which says that an article that survived an AFD (with or without consensus) cannot be speedy deleted if it meets one or more criteria. If I'd missed that clause - and I may well have - please point me to it! :) --kingboyk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You are right. There was no consensus on the last afd. I apologize for my error. General criteria for speedy deletion #4 provide for recreated deleted article. Whatever happened last time, this article still has to follow Wikipedia criteria of WP:V and WP:N and WP:OR. It's hard to do that without adding outside links to multiple independent sources. It's very important for Wikipedia articles to meet these to be a credible source, as it aims to be. Add some links, why don't you? According to the link provided below, provided by Peripitus, if you do not add them the article will be a candidate for speedy deletion. (Look down at the bottom of the page.) Mattisse(talk) 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per first discussion. --Stormie 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing the Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work part of WP:BIO. His book What customers want seems to get him over the line. As it's passed AfD before as no consensus the nominator really needs to show why it now should be deleted rather than just renominating - Peripitus (Talk) 03:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no notability, and agree entirely with the nominator. --kingboyk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ulwick is a published author, and a notable figure in American business. He is considered an authority on product and market innovation, which may be more of a niche interest, and therefore would falsely appear to not be notable. --Ereid01 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ulwick passes bio as awarded published author Yuckfoo 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow chromatography[edit]

deproded, then reproded by another editior. Since this is not allowed, I have changed it to an AfD. The following was Ruairi irish's reason in the most recent prod: This page reads too much like an advertisement. Also, this page's contents could be moved to a different page. Please see "discussion" for more information. --Spring Rubber 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio of the linked site and a term with no google hits outside wikipedia and the advertisers site. Advertisement for commercial site at best - Peripitus (Talk) 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Per -- Deville (Talk) 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be a technique, but apparently one used almost exclusively by it's inventor as listed on his website. Mugaliens 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist Art[edit]

Ephemeral neologism, unencyclopedic, original research, unsourced claims, blah, blah, blah. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Article is heavily rearched with more than 50 references, including academic journals, which are in the process of being edited into the article. I ask you to refrain from inappropriate comments until the article is complete. Since we just started entering data on this article, it is highly suspect that you would immediately write such biased and unprofessional commentary.

Avanteguard 08-09-2006

  1. Article was only in existence for 10 minutes before it was slated for deletion. It was in the process of being developed by the original author; I suggest the author be given some time to finish writing the article and providing the intended citations. I suggest that koavf's actions are the result of some inherent bias against the subject of transhumanism in general. --NJHeathen 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy as an essay. Doesn't even say what transhumanist art is. -- Koffieyahoo 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait! That was added but Justin (above) removed the text before he submitted it to deletion. This is entirely unfair. Now we have to rewrite it from scratch. Avantguarde

*Keep or Userfy The article as it currently is (as of when this message is signed) is pretty poor, however it does appear to be onto something substantial. New users are typically unused to using userspace to polish up an article before posting, but it's a safe thing to do. If the article has been improved by the end of this AfD, then keep. Else userfy to allow it to be properly worked upon. LinaMishima 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Whilst the text of the article still does not read too well, it certainly has strong references. As it has references from respected organisations, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABLE are passed. All it needs now is for the text to be improved. LinaMishima 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • additional although it must be noted that several of the references appear to be for transhuman rather than the associated art movement. LinaMishima 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give us a few days to work on it please. This is our first article and your help is enormously appreciated. We want it to be a really great article. Avantguarde

* Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOR. No matter how new an article is, the standards are the same, and sources must be in from the start. Its one source is what, a podcast? This should not preclude recreation as a serious article. Sandstein 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to keep, infra.[reply]

    • Sources were Edited out Unknowingly We did have sources from the beginning, but during the first few minutes of inputting the article, Justin deleted the text. This was biased and unprofessional. We didn't knkow about it until later, and immediately worked to restructure the araticle. But, you are absolutely correct that the sources ought to be in from the beginning. I am trying to fix that now. Regarding podcasts, one source is a podcast by R.U. Sirius who is well-known author. Podcasts are valuable current-day methods for interviewing. But if you are unaware of cyberculture and lastest technologies then it would seem strange. If you like, I can defend podcasts are a viable source for journalism and research. Avantguarde
      • check the history I can't see any references in the history. I do, however, see references there now, so I shall change my vote. Podcasts are probably not intrinsically good source material, but their associated blog and transcript could well be if by a respected author. LinaMishima 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • R.U. Sirius (Podcast/blog) author Thank you for the suggestion. Please allow me to explain. R.U. Sirius is a respected author, having published a number of books: The Revolution: Quotations from Revolution Party Chairman Pub. Feral House (2000) [[96]] and 21st Century Revolutionary: R.U. Sirius 1984-1998 [[97]]; Shattered Lives: Portraits From America's Drug War by Mikki Norris, Chris Conrad, Virginia Resner, and R.U. Sirius [[98]]; Design for Dying by Timothy Leary and R. U. Sirius [[99]]; and Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge : Cyberpunk, Virtual Reality, Wetware, Designer Aphrodisiacs, Artificial Life, Techno-Erotic Paganism, by Rudy Rucker, R. U. Sirius, and Queen Mu Pub. Perennial, (1st ed edition, November 1992) [[100]]. Avantguarde 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now keep. Still a very confusing and poorly layouted article, but it's got some real sources now, so this seems to exist, at least as a slogan. Sandstein 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Layout I will work on the layout today to bring it up to standards. I am a bit confused as to how to develop the contents section and some other structural formatting issues.
  • Keep. This article does need some work, but its references are substantial and the content. 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Adding Information We need to review other articles on art genres and movements to bring this up to top standards. 72.177.10.39 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amaavaasi[edit]

Incomplete AFD found by DumbBOT. No opinion from me.-Royalguard11Talk 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as far as I can tell, it's an Indian poem. It is presented without translation or explanation. - Richardcavell 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Delete - It is in Tamil and is totally irrelevant. Ideal candidate for Speedy deleteDoctor Bruno 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Murmurs. --Ezeu 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REDCAR[edit]

This is a page about a band that has just signed a record deal. It fails WP:MUSIC on almost all points, though two of the members were once in The Murmurs. That band qualifies easily, but does not really seem to have made it big, would just having a member from that band make REDCAR notable enough? Google presence is minimal, and the band's website is not up yet. As far as I'm concerned they have proved nothing yet, and they should have their own entry when they qualify more easily.Lomedae talk 22:21, August 2, 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete under WP:MUSIC. Gazpacho 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. WP:MUSIC says "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." As such the article should be either kept or redirected to the Murmurs article. BoojiBoy 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine Gush (band) should receive the same fate as this page. Ojakian 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Sports Financial Exchange[edit]

Appears to be spam. Another user engaged in an edit war labelling this as a scam. The other user in the edit war appears to have a commercial interest in the subject of this article. Also including allsportsmarket.com in this AfD. theProject 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not delete this article. My name is Carlos Duran and I am the marketing director for the GSFE. This article was created by a member of our exchange. I do not know how to directly contact you, but if you can contact me at [email protected] and provide instructions I will supply academic articles on the GSFE from doctorate members of the UCLA economics department along with documentation from US Lobbying and legal firms as to the function and purpose of the GSFE.

    I can also provide various media reports on the GSFE/ASM platform including one from the NYSE floor in Wall Street, this report was aired on Channel 11 WPIX in NY,NY.

    I am asking that you provide a way that I can supply this documentation for your review. It seems that the person(s) who have been accusing us of fraudulent activities and erasing the entry to put up a libelous script are set with malignant intent. It is our belief that this person(s) were found to be violating exchange trade policy and are now resorting to a vengful response.

    Please give us a fair chance to show Wikipedia what the GSFE is. My email is [email protected]

    Thank you for your time and assistance.

    Carlos Duran — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMMarketing (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09 23:11:41

  • Delete both as a company failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Searching through the net all of the articles I can find are clearly written by the company. The exchange appears to be simply a sports gambling site disguised as derivitives trading. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a moment to read these:

http://www.al.com/business/mobileregister/kturner.ssf?/base/business/114276370150830.xml&coll=3

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Lankhof/2006/03/08/1478175-sun.html --ASMMarketing 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Carlos, thank you for your honesty about being a marketer, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 02:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of meeting WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB is provided. --Kinu t/c 05:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "documentation from an UCLA team" is also the product created by an ASM user. There is no such thing as an official GSFE as of yet. --waiwiki80 08:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC) -[reply]
The above user has 11 edits in total, seven to the article currently under consideration and two to this AfD. theProject 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a marketing attempt. If you check this link [101], where Capo de tutti Capo = Carlos Duran, you'll see that ASM users were even promised stocks if they go to Wikipedia and create an entry on ASM. --wikipuuh111 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has 3 edits in total, two to the article currently under consideration and one to this AfD. theProject 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our honest belief that user Waiwiki80 and user Wikipuuh111 are a boyfriend/girlfriend team we found to be commiting fraudulent activities within our exchange and are now attempting to hurt us via libelous actions. --ASMMarketing 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny. I wonder what my real boyfriend would say to that. Now, with regard to my "agenda" or my "libelous" comments (I can only speak for myself), everyone is able to read what I posted in the article disputed here. In contrast to you, I included a few external references. I have many more, and I can also scan offline evidence and post it for everyone to see if that's what you want. The only "agenda" that could be attributed to me is the decision that I am not going to tolerate any longer how you scam people again and again (you know as much as I do that ASM / GSFE is not your first fraudulent business). For plenty of years, I have been enjoying Wikipedia as a user and felt too much respect for the work of others to even try to write my own articles on whatever subject. I know that there are tons of talented Wikipedia users out there who can do much better than I could. But now that you openly decided to abuse Wikipedia for one of your (in-)famous marketing campaigns, I had to step in and so had others. I did not come here first and post "libelous" stuff. YOUR team started the whole thing without checking first what Wikipedia is all about. I will be totally fine if the ultimate decision will be to remove everything. Stuff like that simply DOES NOT belong on Wikipedia (some of the other users here please correct me if I am wrong. As I said, I'm more a reader here, not a writer). waiwiki80 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Chris P. Rabalais and I am the President of AllSportsMarket.com. Direct your questions or concerns about this matter to me at [email protected]. If the operators of Wikipedia are not interested in the true nature of our business and will sustain the efforts of malicious parties who have other agendas, simply remove this definition and prevent further definitions from being posted by anyone. These are the affected terms: G.S.F.E., Global Sports Financial Exchange, AllSportsMarket and AllSportsMarket.com.

Sincerely, Chris P. Rabalais President/C.E.O. AllSportsMarket.com Global Sports Financial Exchange, Inc.

  • Comment: Regardless of whether or not the article passes WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB, and regardless of whether the two latest recommendations of deletion are indeed "out to get you", as is claimed, as a general rule, articles should not be written by people associated with the article's subject. Since it very much appears that users on your site were offered incentives for creating and contributing to this article, I strongly doubt whether this article can remain neutral should it survive AfD. theProject 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spamvertisement, pure & simple. -- Slowmover 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is true we offered an incentive to any trader who provided an accurate entry into Wikipedia. At the time I was not familiar with all the Wikipedia requirements that I have now become familiar with. This was not done as a marketing stunt; it was done because I am not technically inclined and we all love Wikipedia so I thought it only fair to offer something of appreciation for someone who took the time to create the entry. I can guarantee that ASM/GSFE will work with Wikipedia to provide a neutral and accurate article and keep it that way. I would like to point out that because of the growing trader base on our exchange it is difficult to say that no one associated with our exchange will contribute. Both GSFE and Wikipedia are part of a global community. I also think this unfair because, as an example, I would think that patrons of McDonalds contribute to the McDonalds entry as I am sure those who fly on planes contribute to the entries regarding Boeing. However if we can not reach a harmonious agreement as to the GSFE/ASM entry we simply ask that no entry be allowed in regard to our exchange, most specifically those that are libelous and unsubstantiated. I would also offer to put any Wikipedia administrator in contact with both our US Government Affairs contact and our legal firm in Virginia.
  • Comment: I would like to present the following media archive with two separate T.V. news stories covering ASM/GSFE. Please let me know if these meet the requirements of WP:Corp. Thank you. Here is the link and password NO DOWNLOAD is required, you will need to scroll down to watch the second story:

http://www.criticalmention.com/vg/allsportsmarket.com/ The Username is: allsportsmarket.com The password is: allsportsmarket.com0895

And in the hope of further shedding light on what the GSFE is I offer the below link to a paper written by Dr. Alper Ozgit (PhD UCLA Economics). Here Dr. Alper writes on what is ASM/GSFE; along with its purpose and place among financial markets and its social and economic functions.

http://www.SportsTradingSecrets.com/AlperOzgit.pdf

Thank you again for your time and patience.--ASMMarketing 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an extensive interview concerning the details of our business on WCCO radio August 8, 2006 at about 10:40pm CST. The first roughly 35 minutes can be found at this link: http://www.sportstradingsecrets.com/Chris_8-9-06.mp3 Chris P. Rabalais - President/C.E.O.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bran Flakes[edit]

Musical group; does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. —tregoweth (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I have never heard of the group, and it does not appear that they meet WP:MUSIC, I would still say that those guidelines are unfortunately limited. I would argue that there is notability in a release history back to 1998, four full releases, and 21 compilation appearances including some on these labels:
At the very worst, this article is harmless. AND, now that I look at it, this article has been here since 2003! - BalthCat 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with respect to Tregoweth I can't see where they fail WP:MUSIC. They seem to meet the Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels criteria. Albums are still for sale on amazon ( admittedly not currently in stock). Looks like a bare pass of the criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peripitus, they have released two albums on labels important enough in their own rights to have WP articles, I would say that qualifies. -- Deville (Talk) 02:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tavis Minner[edit]

Vanity. Non-notable per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Few Google hits, unverified, and non-notable (unless the "award" mentioned in the article is a notable award). --Gray Porpoise 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, that award gets 21 Ghits, some of which are WP mirrors. Definitely not notable except in the Tulsa area, doesn't qualify for WP:BIO. -- Deville (Talk) 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, and being a local teacher of the year does not count. --Kinu t/c 05:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Píča[edit]

The article is offending and has nothing to do with countries outside the Czech Republic, the title of the article is in fact one of the most vulgar words in the Czech language. Actually, the whole article deals exclusively with an extremely vulgar and offensive symbol. Therefore it is unappropriate to have a separate Wikipedia entry on this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Jindra (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09 22:35:18

  • keep Wikipedia is not censored. ReverendG 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC) also, see finger (gesture), Fuck, etc, etc.[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If you wish this article deleted, please provide a rationale that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, rather than in 100% opposition to them. Uncle G 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ReverendG and Uncle G. -- Koffieyahoo 01:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've tagged this for references but keep pending a better deletion reason - Peripitus (Talk) 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom's own statement, since articles relating to the Czech Republic are also a useful counter to geographical bias. --Celithemis 01:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, this article isn't written with the intent to be vulgar, it just happens to be about a vulgar topic. By all policy it should stay, and for what it's worth, this certainly isn't the most vulgar article topic on Wikipedia, by a long shot. -- Deville (Talk) 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"has nothing to do with countries outside the Czech Republic"
  • Objection, Keep! Wikipedia has a large number of systematic biases. Although not listed on WP:BIAS, one of those is that articles on english-as-first-language countries are more common. The above is a bad reason to nominate the article, as there are many articles about subjects that have no interest to those outside of the USA (or the UK, for that matter). LinaMishima 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More seriously, this does have references, is a cultural version of something detailed in another article, and is usefully informative. LinaMishima 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Czech Wikipedia has an article about it so it must be acceptable enough to them to have in their encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced, not a dicdef. At the least a procedural keep as no deletion rationale has been provided. --Kinu t/c 05:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deville. Interesting article, by the way. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your objections are logical and article will be probably kept. But as a Czech citizen I can assure you that the last sentence in the article was total nonsense (I have already removed it) and the whole article is intentionally written to look professionaly while in fact it is a bad joke. "The symbol isn't included in Unicode" sentence is just ridiculous. This is not a real accepted symbol - it's just a simplified drawing of cunt (this word is most similar to piča) used mostly by teenagers. Also, correct title of article should be piča (píča is used only by minority of Czechs). I have nothing against vulgarisms and I use them too. I just nominated this article for deletion because I was afraid it could be taken seriously by English readers while in fact it is rubbish.--Jakub Jindra 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Jakub. MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've translated this (or I've tried) from Czech lang. If I thought it is nonsence, I wouldn't make it. It's not a joke. It's true, Wikipedia is about description of real world, not about choosing what's right and what's wrong. Miraceti is the original author and he's sysop on cswiki and has over 6000 edits [102]. Petr K 22:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please see my statement at Talk:Píča. Miraceti 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox diet[edit]

Nothing but pure advertisement. Seriously, can anyone defend this? ReverendG 04:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang Glider Empire[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 3 self published albums, no allmusic notes, no news articles. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC per nom - Peripitus (Talk) 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Hard to believe a post-hardcore band left Leavenworth, Kansas tho. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Shaun of the Dead.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rom zom com[edit]

This term was created purely as part of the PR/hype for Shaun of the Dead; there is no way it will ever be the basis for an encyclopedic and/or noteworthy article. Soobrickay 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9&oldid=1081094594"